Bernice Rutland v. Robinson Property Group, L.L.C., et al.

This case presents one of national importance and significance because it conflicts with well-established rules and principles of summary judgement. The decision in this case conflicts with this Court and other Federal Courts. Stare decisis is a fundamental legal principle, clearly established law. In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 333 (1986), this court held: “A defendant cannot get summary judgment through a conclusory assertion that the plaintiff does not have evidence to support the complaint. Instead, the defendant must show the absence of evidence in the discovery record.” Summary Judgement is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). The Questions Presented are:

1. Whether the Fifth Circuits ruling conflicts with this Court’s ruling on case law and Summary Judgement, F.R.C.P. 56(a).

2. Whether a District Court can settle a disputed fact as to who rented or owned the Motorized Wheel­ chair/Scooter and then grant summary judgement to the moving party, based solely on the grounds that the plaintiff only has conclusional allegations, unsupported assertions, and presented only a scintilla of evidence, while the movant, ironically, only listed conclusory allegations, unsupported assertions and presented only a scintilla of evidence and proffered nothing.

3. Whether in summary judgement, does listing five (5) exhibits without arguments, without witnesses with first-hand knowledge, and without statements from other witnesses be considered evidentiary evidence, or would they only become evidentiary evidence when combined with arguments, witnesses with first-hand knowledge, or statements from other witnesses?