1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 1
Ibrahim Mohammad Mustafa
300 SE 11 th Ave. #303
Pompano Beach, FL 33060
(954) 709-1835
mustafadrn80@gmail.com
Plaintiff in pro per
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
Case No.: 21-CV-20633-LENARD LOUIS
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOW COMES Ibrahim Mohammad Mustafa, Plaintiff, and files this Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, and hereby avers as follows:
1. Rule 56(e) provides that, when a properly supported motion for summary judgment is
made, the adverse party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial."
2. Summary judgment is appropriate where the court is satisfied "that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c).
3. The burden of establishing the nonexistence of a "genuine issue" is on the party moving
for summary judgment. 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 2
Procedure § 2727, p. 121 (2d ed. 1983) (hereinafter Wright) (citing cases); 6 J. Moore,
W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1985) (hereinafter
Moore). See also, ante, at 323; ante, at 328 (WHITE, J., concurring). In its motion,
Defendant has failed to demonstrate the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Nothing in the motion or the statement of material facts provided by Defendant shows
that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
4. This burden has two distinct components: an initial burden of production, which shifts to
the nonmoving party if satisfied by the moving party; and an ultimate burden of
persuasion, which always remains on the moving party. See 10A Wright § 2727.
5. Courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences "in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion." United States v.
Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam).
6. At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a "genuine" dispute as to those facts. Fed. Rule Civ.
Proc. 56(c).
7. As we have emphasized, "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule
56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts …. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no `genuine issue for
trial.’" Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587, 106
S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)
8. "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat
an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 3
there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
9. When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
10. Where the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a
genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter
is presented.
11. "It has always been perilous for the opposing party neither to proffer any countering
evidentiary materials nor file a 56 (f) affidavit. And the peril rightly continues [after the
amendment to Rule 56 (e)]. Yet the party moving for summary judgment has the burden
to show that he is entitled to judgment under established principles; and if he does not
discharge that burden then he is not entitled to judgment. No defense to an insufficient
showing is required." 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 [2], pp. 2824-2825 (2d ed.
1966).
12. "the party opposing the motion for summary judgment bears the burden of
responding only after the moving party has met its burden of coming forward with proof
of the absence of any genuine issues of material fact." Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales
Corp., 244 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 756 F. 2d 181 (1985).
13. Plaintiff will proceed to demonstrate that there exists a genuine issues of material fact to
be determined at trial, therefore this Court should deny Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment.
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 4
Honorable Court to DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANT Plaintiff
such further and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate, fit and proper.
Dated this ___ day of August, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Ibrahim Mohammad Mustafa,
Plaintiff in pro per
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 5
VERIFICATION
I, Ibrahim Mohammad Mustafa, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and know the contents thereof. That
the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon
information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
Dated this ___ day of August, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Ibrahim Mohammad Mustafa,
Plaintiff in
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
