Ferran v. United States

17 F.R.D. 210, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4069
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ferran v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 144 F. Supp. 652
District Court, D. Puerto Rico·Decided March 31, 1955·No. Civ. No. 8694·Published

Opinion

RUIZ-NAZARIO, District Judge.

The affidavit of the United States Attorney in support of the motion herein fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and, therefore, the Court cannot give any weight to the contents thereof in considering defendant’s request for a summary judgment.

As the allegations of the amended complaint are so meagre in the exposition of many informative facts which, if properly alleged, would have permitted the court to determine whether or not this action falls within the exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq., invoked by the defendant in its motion for summary judgment, the Court is unable to hold, in the absence of further facts presenting a clearer picture of the situation that defendant is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law.

“A litigant has a right to a trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts.” Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 130, 135, 136; Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419, 434, 64 S.Ct. 1090 88 L.Ed. 1363; Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464, 470, 471; Sarnoff v. Ciaglia, 3 Cir., 165 F.2d 167, 168. Cited [211]*211with approval in Peckham v. Ronrico Corporation, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 653, 657.

That being the rule in this jurisdiction, defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be, as it is hereby, denied.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ferran v. United States, 17 F.R.D. 210, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4069 (prd 1955).

17 F.R.D. 210 (Ferran v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arenas v. United States
322 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Arnstein v. Porter
154 F.2d 464 (Second Circuit, 1946)
Peckham v. Ronrico Corporation
171 F.2d 653 (First Circuit, 1948)
Sarnoff v. Ciaglia
165 F.2d 167 (Third Circuit, 1947)
Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States
149 F.2d 130 (Second Circuit, 1945)