![]() (I do not know of any similar California authority, but this is a logical analysis and not inconsistent with any rule I am aware of.)Ģ. Here, the relevance objections lacked merit as to first-hand observations, and a medical expert report, which "go to the central issues in the case." Conversely, if the submitted evidence does not create a genuine dispute of material fact, there is no need for the court to separately determine whether it is relevant because, even assuming it is not, it will not affect the ultimate summary judgment ruling." As the Court puts it: "if evidence submitted on summary judgment could create a genuine dispute of material fact, it is, by definition, "of consequence in determining the action," and therefore relevant. As the Ninth Circuit observes, relevance objections are redundant on summary judgment, because the entire function of the motion is to determine whether there is relevant evidence. Relevance objections on summary judgment motions are improper. Here are some key points to add to your MSJ checklist:ġ. That done, the Court concluded "the objections were meritless, if not downright frivolous."Įven though plaintiff failed to respond to the objections before the district court sustained them, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The lack of any explanation was a factor, and certainly an annoyance, as it forced the Court to carefully review the record to understand the basis for the objections. "This decision," the Ninth Circuit held, "which had the effect of striking crucial evidence from the summary judgment record, was an abuse of discretion." The court sustained all the objections, also without explanation. The objections were asserted without explanation. In response to plaintiff's evidence in opposition, the County "submitted boilerplate one-word objections" based on relevance, hearsay, and foundation. The suit was removed to federal court as to the section 1983 claim. His wife brought suit in state court on both state law claims and section 1983. In Sandoval, a man on probation swallowed a lethal amount of meth rather than let deputy sheriffs find it, and died while in his holding cell. 18-55289, holding that perfunctory evidentiary objections are disallowed, and summarizing other objections that simply don't apply on summary judgment. ![]() With the judgment vacated, the breach of contract case will now revert to the District Court.Before your next summary-judgment motion, be sure to read Sandoval v. The Eleventh Circuit found, consistent with Holland & Knight attorneys' arguments, that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over some of the claims against the Dominican Republic based on its sovereign immunity – and that the default occurred as a result of excusable neglect. In a 29-page opinion published in June 2015, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court. ![]() Our attorneys further argued that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the default judgment against the country because the Dominican Republic is a foreign sovereign immune from suit in this country under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Holland & Knight attorneys presented a fact-intensive argument, ultimately demonstrating that nobody in an official managerial capacity within the Dominican Republic government knew anything about the case. For the Eleventh Circuit, the central question focused on service of the lawsuit and whether a Dominican government official ever received the complaint. Our team argued excusable neglect on the basis that Dominican officials never knew about the suit because of a consulate secretary's clerical error. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, helping reverse the ruling that ordered the country to compensate two Floridian companies $50.1 million for an alleged breach of an irrigation contract. In June 2015, a team of our South Florida litigation and appellate attorneys prevailed in the U.S. Our attorneys argued that the mishandling of the service of the suit and default judgment was excusable neglect, and that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the default judgment in regards to the Dominican Republic. Immediately, the Caribbean nation enlisted Holland & Knight to vacate the default judgment and allow the country to defend the lawsuit on the merits. When the Dominican Republic and INDRHI failed to respond, a Miami federal judge issued a $50.1 million default judgment. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2013 for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with the development of an irrigation system in the Dominican Republic. Two Florida-based companies – Architectural Ingenieria Siglo and Sun Land & RGITC – sued the Dominican Republic and its independent agency, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Hidráulicos (INDRHI), in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |