My Evidence Matters
which supports my Right to a Jury Trial
(Seventh Amendment, Light Most Favorable, Credibility,
Faulty Recollection, and Withholding and/or Suppressing Documents)
Supreme Court: "The right to confront, cross-examine and impeach adverse witnesses is one of the most fundamental rights sought to be preserved by the Seventh Amendment provision for jury trials in civil cases... It is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given their testimony can be appraised. Trial by affidavit is no substitute for trial by jury which so long has been the hallmark of 'even handed justice.'" Poller v Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S. Ct 486, 7 L.Ed2d 458 (1962)
Ninth Circuit: "Summary Judgment is an extreme remedy. It should not be granted unless the movant [Harrington] has established its right to judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy. May Dep't Store v Graphic Process Co., F.2d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 1980).
Light Most Favorable
Supreme Court: "If direct evidence produced by the moving party [Harrington] conflicts with direct evidence produced by the non-moving party [Shana], the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the non-moving party [Shana] with respect to the fact." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co Ltd v Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 584, 106 S. Ct 1348 (1986)
Ninth Circuit: "What is required to defeat Summary Judgment is simply evidence 'such that a reasonable juror drawing all inferences in the favor of the respondent [Shana] could return a verdict in the respondent's [Shana's] favor.'" Reze v Pearce, 806 F.3d 497, 505 (9th Cir.)
Ninth Circuit: "The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.'" Reed v Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 2014 (9th cir. 2017)
Ninth Circuit: "The judge does not weight conflicting evidence to a disputed material fact... Nor does the judge make credibility determinations with respect to statements made in affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or depositions. These determinations are within the province of the fact finder at trial." Clearly v News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir. 1994)
Second Circuit: "But where, as here, credibility including that of the Defendant, is crucial, summary judgment becomes improper and a trial indispensible." Amstein v Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 469-470, 471 (2d Cir. 1946)
Second Circuit: "It follows that as credibility is unavoidably involved, a genuine issue of material facts presents itself. With credibility a vital factor, a Plaintiff is entitled to a trial..." See Amstein v Porter 154 F.2d 464, 469-470, 471 (2nd Cir. 1946)
"A witness' repeated failure to recollect important information casts doubt on his or her credibility." See Brookins v Staples Contract & Commercial Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18590 (D. Mass), at 19-20; See also Davison v Pittsfield, 2012 Mass. App, Unpub. Lexis 100, at 8
Withholding and/or Suppressing Documents
Supreme Court: "Summary Judgment procedures should be used sparingly in complex... litigation where motive and intent play leadings roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators..." Poller v Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct 486, 7 L.Ed2d 458 (1962)
Ninth Circuit: "Where relevant evidence which would properly be part of the case is within the control of the party whose interest would naturally be to produce it, and he fails to do so,... the jury may draw an inference that such evidence would have been unfavorable to him. Reingold v Wet N' Wild Nevada, Inc., 944 P.2d 980 (Nev. 1997)
Nevada Supreme Court: The Nevada Supreme Court has determined that where the evidence is "willfully suppressed," NRS 7.250 (3) applies and a disputable (or rebuttable) presumption is made; when the evidence is negligently "lost or destroyed," and adverse inference applies. Bass v Davis, 134 P.3d Nevada ADV Op. 39 (2006)
If, in your opinion, you believe that My Evidence Matters and that The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should REMAND this case back to the District Court, for a Jury to decide at Trial
Keep Going ... There is More to the Story
go to the next page of the website by clicking on the "Lots of Love Buddies" Logo below
Thank you for taking the time to view my website My Evidence Matters.
The mission of this website is NOT to defame anyone or to say that anyone is guilty.
(That determination lies solely in the province of a jury at trial.)
The sole purpose of the website is that
I believe, in my honest opinion, that My Evidence Matters
and that My 7th Amendment Right to a Jury Trial has been violated.