James v. Antarctic Mechanical Services, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

TRACEY JAMES PLAINTIFF

V. CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-678-CWR-FKB

ANTARCTIC MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Tracey James’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Various Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants’ Amended Answer. “The party seeking summary judgment has the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those parts of the record that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Latimer v. Smithkline & French Labs., 919 F.2d 301, 303 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Here, James argues extensively that “there is no credible and admissible evidence” to support the Defendants’ first, second, and third affirmative defenses. However, she fails to cite any legal basis for her arguments beyond the summary judgment standard itself. Moreover, as pointed out by the defendants, there are fact disputes which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Accordingly, James has not met her burden of showing that she is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of February, 2020.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE