United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the parties' competing
Motions for Summary Judgment.
Live Face On Web, LLC, moved for summary judgment on its sole
claim against Defendant Integrity Solutions Group, Inc., on
January 16, 2018. (Doc. # 114.) Defendant responded in
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on
March 5, 2018 (Doc. # 137), and Plaintiff filed a Reply in
support of its motion on March 19, 2018 (Doc. # 148).
filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on January 17,
2018. (Doc. # 122.) Plaintiff responded in
opposition to Defendant's motion on March 5, 2018 (Doc. #
138), to which Defendant replied on March 19, 2018 (Doc. #
Court, having reviewed all filings and relevant case law and
being fully advised in the premises, denies in part and
grants in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
and denies Defendant's Motion to Summary Judgment.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
judgment is warranted when “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 fact is “material” if it is
essential to the proper disposition of the claim under the
relevant substantive law. Wright v. Abbott Labs.,
Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). A dispute
is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it
might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, Okl., 119 F.3d
837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). When reviewing a motion for
summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. However,
conclusory statements based merely on conjecture,
speculation, or subjective belief do not constitute competent
summary judgment evidence. Bones v. Honeywell Int'l,
Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004).
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement
to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In attempting to
meet this standard, a movant who does not bear the ultimate
burden of persuasion at trial does not need to disprove the
other party's claim; rather, the movant need simply point
out to the Court a lack of evidence for the other party on an
essential element of that party's claim. Adler v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir.
1998) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986)).
the movant has met its initial burden, the burden then shifts
to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256
(1986). The nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its
pleadings to satisfy its burden. Id. Rather, the
nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts that
would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from
which a rational trier of fact could find for the
nonmovant.” Adler, 144 F.3d at 671. Stated
differently, the party must provide “significantly
probative evidence” that would support a verdict in her
favor. Jaramillo v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. 14, 680
F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 2012). “To accomplish this,
the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits,
deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated
PLAINTIFF'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM
review of the parties' filings and the evidence
referenced therein, the Court determines that genuine issues
of material fact preclude the Court from entering summary
judgment in favor of either party on Plaintiff's sole
claim of copyright infringement. See (Doc. # 1 at
9-12.) Among the genuine issues of material fact:
• Whether Plaintiff owns a valid ...