Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 8 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN ADMIRALTY
INTERNATIONAL MARINE
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.,
A Florida Not For Profit Charity,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendants.
________________________________________/
its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order dated May 5, 2006,
In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must meet the criteria
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(c) states in part:
-1-
1 of 5
26/gz
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2006 Page 2 of 5
Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of meeting
this exacting standard. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). In determining
whether summary judgement is appropriate, the facts and inferences from the facts are viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the burden is placed on the moving party
to establish both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. vs. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106
Summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its
burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all of the evidence
is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing
Company, 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983). All doubt to the existence of a material fact must be
resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d
994, 996 (5th Cir. 1979)1, quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co., 441 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1964).
A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 211 (1986).
1
In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions handed down by the former Fifth Circuit
before October 1, 1981.
-2-
2 of 5
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2006 Page 3 of 5
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing
the Court of the basis for its motion, identifying those portions of the “pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrates the absence of
a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. At 2553.
In determining whether the moving party has met its burden of establishing that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the
Court must draw inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and
resolve all reasonable doubts in that party’s favor. Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th
Cir. 1989); Samples on behalf of Samples v. City of Atlanta, 846 F.2d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.
1988). The Eleventh Circuit has explained the reasonableness standard as follows:
Put in a slightly different manner, if a reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence
could draw more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference introduces a genuine
issue of material fact, then the Court should not grant the summary judgment motion. Augusta
Iron & Steel Works v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 835 F.2d 855, 856 (11th Cir. 1988). A
dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248, 106
S.Ct. At 2510 (1986). The inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
-3-
3 of 5
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2006 Page 4 of 5
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
The evidence presented must be constructed in favor of the non-moving party, and that
party must receive the benefit of all favorable inferences that can be drawn from that party’s
evidence. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962).
In other words, all doubt as to the evidence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved
against the moving party and the court must draw inferences from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-movant. Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1989); Sweat v.
Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983). The trial court’s function is not to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue
for trial. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 C. and D., IMRI controverts the Defendant’s Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts, §9, of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. No deposition
has yet been taken and it is unclear whether Defendant, ROYAL MARINE INSURANCE
GROUP, INC. transmitted information regarding the Nikki’s movement from the St. Augustine
ARGUMENT
Summary judgment should not be granted before the parties have an opportunity to
engage in meaningful discovery. In the present case, Plaintiff told Defendant, ROYAL
MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC.’s representatives that the M/V Nikki was going to be
moved from St. Augustine, Florida towards South Florida without having the opportunity to take
-4-
4 of 5
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2006 Page 5 of 5
whether the information was relayed from ROYAL MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC. to
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been electronically filed with the U.S.
District Court and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail
and telefax on this 8th day of May, 2006, to: Charles G. De Leo, Esq., Fowler, White, et al.,
Attorneys for Sanders Marine Towing, Inc., d/b/a Ft. Pierce Towing, Inc. and Larry Allen
Balanchett, 1395 Brickell Avenue, 14th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131-3302; Richard J. McAlpin,
Esq., Jonathan H. Dunleavy, Esq., McAlpin & Brais, P.A., Attorneys of Indemnity Insurance
Company of North America, 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2805, Miami, Florida 33130; Neil Bayer,
Esq., Sarnoff & Bayer, P.A., Attorneys for Royal Marine Insurance Co., 3000 Shipping Avenue
-5-
5 of 5