Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
June 17, 2021, Decided; June 17, 2021, Filed
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00197-REB-NRN
The matters before me are (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#59],1 filed September 11, 2020; and (2) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary [*1131] Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [#64], filed October 1, 2020. I grant defendant's motion, deny plaintiff's motion, and dismiss plaintiff's claims herein.
I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
] Summary judgment is proper when 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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if the issue could be resolved in favor of either party. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 1994). A fact is "material" if it might reasonably affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Farthing, 39 F.3d at 1134.
] A party [**2] who does not have the burden of proof at trial must show the absence of a genuine factual dispute. Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1517 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1004, 115 S. Ct. 1315, 131 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1995). By contrast, a movant who bears the burden of proof must submit evidence to establish every essential element of its claim or affirmative defense. See In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 209 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1111 (D. Colo. 2002). In either case, once the motion has been properly supported, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show, by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence, that summary judgment is not proper. Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1518.2 All the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 815, 120 S. Ct. 53, 145 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1999).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
544 F. Supp. 3d 1128 *; 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113384 **; 2021 WL 2473925
TINA MEHAFFEY, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant.
Prior History: Mehaffey v. Navient Solutions, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163708 (D. Colo., Feb. 13, 2020)
treble damages, retroactive, summary judgment, damages, cases, parties, courts, phone, punitive damages, due process, quasi-criminal, notice
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Judgments, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Materiality of Facts, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Burdens of Proof, Burdens of Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Motions for Summary Judgment, Cross Motions, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Telemarketing, Business & Corporate Compliance, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Constitutional Law, Congressional Duties & Powers, Lower Federal Courts, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, State & Territorial Governments, Legislatures, Effect & Operation, Retrospective Operation, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Clause, Ex Post Facto Clause, Application & Interpretation, Quantum of Punishment, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Case or Controversy, Constitutionality of Legislation, Inferences & Presumptions