7/3/2023 0 Comments Portage township schools![]() ![]() 1990) (citations omitted) see also Hong v. However, the moving party, if it chooses, may support its motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other materials, and, if the moving party has produced sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there are no genuine issues for trial, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that an issue of material fact exists. When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party is not required to support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent s claim. ![]() The moving party may discharge its initial responsibility by simply showing that is, pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party s case. A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. ![]() 1994) (citations and quotations omitted). In other words, the record must reveal that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. ummary judgment is appropriate in fact, is mandated where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the movant must prevail as a matter of law. Rule 56 further requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that motions for summary judgment be granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The parties filed forms of consent to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case. Defendant has not filed a reply in support of the Motion to Strike, and the time to do so has passed. Plaintiff filed a response to the Motion to Strike on May 13, 2013. On May 3, 2013, Defendant filed a reply in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment as well as the instant Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff s Statement of Genuine Disputes. ![]() Plaintiff filed a response brief on April 10, 2013. On January 31, 2013, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment and memorandum in support. Defendant removed the case to this Court on February 16, 2011, and filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 23, 2011. Plaintiff also alleges state law claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention (Counts I, II, III). § 1983 (Count V), alleging that Defendant failed to prevent, stop, or remedy known, ongoing, severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment amounting to gender discrimination against Plaintiff. § 1681 (Count IV), and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. Plaintiff brings federal claims under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1927, 20 U.S.C. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff Desiree Craig filed a Complaint against Defendant Portage Township Schools in the Porter County, Indiana Superior Court. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Strike, denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Title IX and § 1983 claims, and remands the state law claims. 2:11-CV-61-PRC OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Portage Township Schools on January 31, 2013, and on Defendant s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff s Statement of Genuine Disputes, filed by Defendant on May 3, 2013. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION DESIREE CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |