Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Itc Textile, Ltd v. Wal-Mart Stores

February 14, 2012

ITC TEXTILE, LTD., PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; JERRY LEIGH OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; AND DOES 1-10, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER Re: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [25]

On February 7, 2012, Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Jerry Leigh of California, Inc.'s ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment [25] came on for regular calendar before the Court. The Court having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion and having considered all arguments presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the Court OVERRULES in part and SUSTAINS in part Plaintiff ITC Textile, Ltd.'s ("Plaintiff") Evidentiary Objections [36].

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue is one in which the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The evidence, and any inferences based on underlying facts, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing party. Diaz v. American Tel. & Tel., 752 F.2d 1356, 1358 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985).

Where the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, the moving party may meet its burden for summary judgment by showing an "absence of evidence" to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

The non-moving party, on the other hand, is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) to go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual allegations, however, are insufficient to create a triable issue of fact so as to preclude summary judgment. Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Marks v. Dept. of Justice, 578 F.2d 261, 263 (9th Cir. 1978)). A non-moving party who has the burden of proof at trial must present enough evidence that a "fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [opposing party] on the evidence presented." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.

The moving party has no burden to negate or disprove matters on which the opponent will have the burden of proof at trial. In fact, the moving party need not produce any evidence at all on those matters. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Evidentiary Objections

As a preliminary matter, the Court evaluates Evidentiary Objections submitted by Plaintiff. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection to the Lander Declaration filed in support of Defendants' Reply as it contains substantially the same information submitted in the original Lander Declaration [38].

In addition, the Court OVERRULES in part and SUSTAINS in part Plaintiff's Objections to the Juarez Declaration [37]. The Court OVERRULES the objection to the statement regarding Juarez's employment with Defendant Jerry Leigh, as it does not constitute new evidence or argument. The remaining statements objected to contain new evidence and new argument; therefore, the Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's second and third objections to the Juarez Declaration and does not consider these materials in its ruling. Wallace v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009 WL 4349534, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009); see also Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir.1996) ("[W]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond.").

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

As to the merits, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that Plaintiff's designs are entitled to full copyright protection, and a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.