AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
đź“‹Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
📚Court Holding
đź’ˇReasoning
🎯Significance
Estimated cost: $0.10–$0.50 per brief, depending on opinion length and retries
Full Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 24, 2019 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION BRIAN LORENTZEN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-18-2924 § CAPITAL SIGN ASSOCIATES, LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER Pending before the court is plaintiff Brian Lorentzen’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18) on the counterclaims asserted against him by defendant Capital Sign Associates, LLC (“Capital Sign”) (Dkt. 8).1 Capital Sign has not responded. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS Lorentzen’s motion for summary judgment. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a “motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). “The movant has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless he has done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.” See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal citations 1 Defendant VA Electrical Contractors LLC was dismissed on July 4, 2019. Dkt. 19. omitted). The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in Lorentzen’s motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, Lorentzen’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. Signed at Houston, Texas on September 23, 2019. LON Gray’. Miller SenidsUnited Statés District Judge
Case Information
- Court
- S.D. Tex.
- Decision Date
- September 23, 2019
- Status
- Precedential