United States District Court, C.D. California
AMINI INNOVATION CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff,
MCFERRAN HOME FURNISHINGS, INC. A California corporation, SHARON LIN, an individual, and DOES 1-9, inclusive, Defendants
For Amini Innovation Corporation, a California corporation, Plaintiff: Daniel Miles Cislo, Donald M Cislo, Mark D Nielsen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Cislo and Thomas LLP, Santa Monica, CA.
For McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant: Cardon B Smith, LEAD ATTORNEY, Samuel G Brooks, Call and Jensen APC, Newport Beach, CA.
For Sharon Lin, an individual, McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant: Scott P Shaw, LEAD ATTORNEY, Call and Jensen PC, Newport Beach, CA.
For Lester Julian Savit, Mediator (ADR Panel): Lester J Savit, One LLP, East Tower, Newport Beach, CA.
ORDER Re: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior United States District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendants McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc. And
Sharon Lin's Motion for Summary Judgment . The Court, having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted pertaining to this Motion, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
A. Legal Standard
Motion for Summary Judgment
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(a). 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The non-moving party, on the other hand, is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) 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. Dep't 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 ...