United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMOS
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court are Defendant CGPM Managers II, d/b/a
Century Golf Partners Management/Arnold Palmer Golf
Management's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
Support (Dkt. #36) and Defendant Stone Creek Country Club,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims by
Plaintiffs (Dkt. #39). Having considered the motions and the
relevant pleadings, the Court finds that both motions should
be DENIED.
LEGAL
STANDARD
The
purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary
judgment is proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Substantive law identifies which facts are material.
Id. The trial court “must resolve all
reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion
for summary judgment.” Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am.
Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir.
1981).
The
party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
informing the court of its motion and identifying
“depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”
that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or
defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must
come forward with evidence that establishes “beyond
peradventure all of the essential elements of the
claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780
F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears
the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by
showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmovant's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325;
Byers v. Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424
(5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the
nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary
judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d
at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). A
nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a
properly supported motion for summary judgment.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material
facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in
briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this
burden. Rather, the Court requires “significant
probative evidence” from the nonmovant to dismiss a
request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting
Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982)
(quoting Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d
111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the
evidence but “refrain from making any credibility
determinations or weighing the evidence.” Turner v.
Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.
2007).
ANALYSIS
Defendants
moved for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine
issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs' claims of
sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. After a
careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the
Court is not convinced that Defendants have met their burden
of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material
fact as to Plaintiffs' Title VII claims entitling them to
judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court finds
that the motions for summary judgment should be denied.
CONCLUSION
It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendant CGPM
Managers II, d/b/a Century Golf Partners Management/Arnold
Palmer Golf Management's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Brief in Support (Dkt. #36) and Defendant Stone Creek Country
Club, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims by
Plaintiffs (Dkt. #39) are hereby DENIED.
IT
...