Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
summary_judgment [2016/12/10 22:14] – [Appeal] adds tag Carlos Pedraza | summary_judgment [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
//**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | //**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
- | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' | + | <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' |
- | Lawyers filed replies on December 5, 2016, to one another' | + | Federal |
- | The first replies to one another' | + | ===== Hearing Canceled ===== |
- | The two sides filed their separate summary judgment motions November 16. The November 28 filings were briefs | + | The scheduling order noted that the hearing was taken "off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration |
- | ===== Early End to Lawsuit ===== | + | |
- | [{{ : | + | {{page> |
- | A motion for summary judgment | + | By that date, attorneys had filed opposition briefs to one another' |
- | > [The motion] is a request for the court to rule that the other party has no case, because there are no facts at issue. The party making the motion is claiming that either the case should not go before a jury at all, or a jury could only rule in favor of the moving party. \\ \\ In order to win [a motion for summary judgment], the moving party must show that: \\ • There are no facts which can reasonably be disputed; or \\ • Anyone looking at the facts and applying law would rule in favor of the moving party.(([[http:// | + | <wrap lo>//[[axam>tag:summary_judgment& |
- | Axanar | + | ===== Judge' |
+ | |||
+ | Cancellation of the hearing means the judge' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Hearing Habits ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In keeping with his reputation as a no-nonsense judge, canceling hearings is not new for Klausner. One attorney wrote in the judicial rating site, The Robing Room: | ||
+ | |||
+ | > [He] cancels hearings at the last minute when he knows you've got a distance to go — then takes papers on submission anyway.((Comment # | ||
+ | |||
+ | Klausner similarly canceled | ||
+ | |||
+ | While it's impossible to know how the judge will rule, it is clear that between three rounds | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Summary Judgments ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | While motions for summary judgments are generally not granted, one lawyer noted that Klausner' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Great judge who makes the legal system as efficient as can be. He is fair on evidence and treats each party equally. <wrap hi>He is also not hesitant on granting motions for summary judgment, which is helpful when your client is spending lots of money to defend a meritless case</ | ||
===== Timeline ===== | ===== Timeline ===== | ||
- | Federal courts follow [[https:// | + | Federal courts follow [[https:// |
< | < | ||
- | {{:: | + | {{: |
<wrap lo> | <wrap lo> | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Earlier Filings ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lawyers filed replies on December 5, 2016, to one another' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first replies to one another' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The two sides filed their separate summary judgment motions November 16. The November 28 filings were briefs of opposition to one another' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Early End to Lawsuit ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | A motion for summary judgment is a means for one party bring an early end to a lawsuit: | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | > [The motion] is a request for the court to rule that the other party has no case, because there are no facts at issue. The party making the motion is claiming that either the case should not go before a jury at all, or a jury could only rule in favor of the moving party. \\ \\ In order to win [a motion for summary judgment], the moving party must show that: \\ • There are no facts which can reasonably be disputed; or \\ • Anyone looking at the facts and applying law would rule in favor of the moving party.(([[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Axanar submitted a [[defense_summary-filing|motion for summary judgment]], while lawyers for plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount]] filed a motion for [[summary_fact_check|partial summary judgment]], each motion requiring a complicated exchange of legal briefs in advance of the hearing before Judge Klausner, as shown in the timeline below. | ||
+ | |||
===== What's In the Motion? ===== | ===== What's In the Motion? ===== | ||
Line 107: | Line 145: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
- | **Keywords** {{tag> | + | **Keywords** {{tag> |