United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Wanda Cain's and
Plaintiff's “Motion[s] for Summary Judgment”
(documents ## 27 & 29) and the parties' associated
briefs and exhibits.
parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under
29 U.S.C. § 636 (c). This Motion is now ripe for the
fully considering the arguments, the record, and the
applicable authority, the Court denies the
parties' Motions for Summary Judgment as discussed below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed this interpleader action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Plaintiff moves for
Summary Judgment as to Defendant Elaine Cain's
counterclaims, to be discharged from this action, for an
award of attorney's fees, and for an order restraining
Defendants from commencing any further action. Defendant
Wanda Cain has also moved for Summary Judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate where 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 dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the non-moving party.” Vannoy v.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296, 300 (4th
Cir. 2016) (quoting Libertarian Party of Va. v.
Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013)). “A fact
is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law.” Id.
movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying
those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the
affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The court must
view the evidence and any inferences therefrom in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Tolan v.
Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014); see also Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The
court applies “the fundamental principle that at the
summary judgment stage, reasonable inferences should be drawn
in favor of the non-moving party.” Jacobs v. N.C.
Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 570 (4th Cir.
2015) (quoting Tolan, 572 U.S. at 660).
judgment cannot be granted merely because the court believes
that the movant will prevail if the action is tried on the
merits.” Id. at 568-69 (quoting 10A Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure § 2728 (3d ed.1998)).
“The court therefore cannot weigh the evidence or make
credibility determinations.” Id. at 569
(citing Mercantile Peninsula Bank v. French (In re
French), 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007)). In the end,
the question posed by a summary judgment motion is whether
the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477
U.S. at 252.
Court concludes that taking the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff and Defendant Elaine Cain, there are
issues of material fact that would permit, but not require, a
reasonable jury to return a verdict in their favor.
Accordingly, Defendant Wanda Cain's Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied.
the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, there
are issues of material fact that would permit, but not
require, a reasonable jury to return a verdict in their
favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied.
agree that mediation could be fruitful. The Court will extend