Rifenberg, Donald L. v. Varlack Ventures, Inc
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN DONALD L. RIFENBERG, Plaintiff, v. VARLACK VENTURES, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2005-174 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Andrew L. Capdeville, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff. Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendant. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff Donald L. Rifenberg (“Rifenberg”) for partial summary judgment on his negligence action against Varlack Ventures, Incorporated (“Varlack”). Summary judgment shall be granted only if “the pleadings, depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file, Case: 3:05-cv-00174-CVG Document #: 94 Filed: 09/18/08 Page 1 of 3 Rifenberg v. Varlack Ventures, Inc. Civil No. 2005-174 Order together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_05-cv-00174/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_05-cv-00174-0.pdf
SHA-256 142ba78dc58ce41ee2f480d189d9e0237244f5bd656e7183c03c1b4e9b26dd56
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-142ba78dc58c
Document text
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN DONALD L. RIFENBERG, Plaintiff, v. VARLACK VENTURES, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2005-174 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Andrew L. Capdeville, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the plaintiff. Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the defendant. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff Donald L. Rifenberg (“Rifenberg”) for partial summary judgment on his negligence action against Varlack Ventures, Incorporated (“Varlack”). Summary judgment shall be granted only if “the pleadings, depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file, Case: 3:05-cv-00174-CVG Document #: 94 Filed: 09/18/08 Page 1 of 3 Rifenberg v. Varlack Ventures, Inc. Civil No. 2005-174 Order together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material if its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for a motion for summary judgment and pointing out those parts of the record which he or she believes demonstrate an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party carries its burden, the non-moving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, but his or her response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Conners v. Fawn Mining Corp., 30 F.3d 483, 489 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-movant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The Court finds that Rifenberg has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, it is hereby Case: 3:05-cv-00174-CVG Document #: 94 Filed: 09/18/08 Page 2 of 3 Rifenberg v. Varlack Ventures, Inc. Civil No. 2005-174 Order ORDERED that Rifenberg’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Rifenberg’s motion to continue the September 19, 2008, hearing on the motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. S\______________________ Curtis V. Gómez Chief Judge Case: 3:05-cv-00174-CVG Document #: 94 Filed: 09/18/08 Page 3 of 3