CAUSE NO. 00-00619
THE LAW OFFICES OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT_
G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. §
§
Plaintiff. § T X.
V.
§ 294th JUDICIAL ~]~RI~T -_DEP.UDOBIRNBAUM, §
Defendant. § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS
CHRISTINA WESTFALL's
OBJECTIONS TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE,
OF RESPONDENT, UDO BI".BAUM
COMES NOW, Christina Westfall, (hereinafter referred to as "Movant"), cross-defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause and file this her objection to the summary judgment evidence offered by Udo Birnbaum ("Respondent") in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Movant and would hereby show the Court as follows:
1.
I . Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 1, for the reason that the same is a pleading and as such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence. Further, Movant objects because the same is not attached to the response, and also for the reason that the evidence is a mere conclusion on the part of the Respondent and constitutes unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.
2. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his
response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 2, for the reason that
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 1 of 7
the same refers to a deposition which is not properly authenticated and is not attached to the response, further, it contains unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.
3. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidencc referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 3, for the reason that he refers to a deposition excerpt which is not attached to the response, not properly authenticated, and as such is not proper summary judgment evidence.
4. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IV: Birnbaum's Designated Evidence, subparagraph 4, for the reason that he refers to a deposition excerpt which is not attached to the response, not properly authenticated, and as such is not proper summary judgment evidence.
5. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiff s Own Documents, subparagraph 1, for the reason that the allegation of evidence is overly broad and not specific, thus not allowing the Movant an adequate opportunity to respond'or object. Also, none of the referred to evidence has been attached to the response, or properly authenticated.
6. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiffs Own Docwnents, subparagraph 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), for the reason that the allegation of evidence has not been attached to the response, or properly authenticated, further it contains unsubstantiated factual, and legal conclusions.
7. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his
response in paragraph V: Evidence in Plaintiffs Own Documents, subparagraph 3 (a), (b), (c),
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 2 of 7
(d), (e), (f), and (g), for the reasons that: the exhibits are 1,iot properly authenticated, are not attached to the response, and constitutes unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.
8. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VI: Evidence in Other Documents, subparagraph 1, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), for the reason that: the exhibits are not properly authenticated, are not attached to the response, and constitutes unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.
.9. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VI: Evidence in Other Documents, subparagraph 2 for the reason that: the depositions referred to are not properly authenticated, are not attached to the response, and the statement is simply an unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.
10. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs A, sub (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
11. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs B, sub (1), (2), (3), and (4), for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitoate proper summary judgment evidence.
12. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his
. response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Thirct Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements,"
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 3 of 7
subparagraphs C, sub (1), and (2) for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper surnmary judgment evidence.
1 -3. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIE Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs D, E, F, and G for the reason that: the Allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
14. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs H, sub (1), (2), and (4), for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions.and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
15. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VII: Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs H, sub (3) for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment -evidence and additionally the deposition and exhibit referred to has not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as such does not constitute proper, summary judgment evidence.
16. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his
response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements,"
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 4 of 7
subparagraphs J, sub (1) and (2) for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence and the evidence referred to has not beer. properly authenticated or attached 'to the response and as such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
17. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs K for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment 'evidence.
18. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs L for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment -evidence and the evidence referred to has not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
19. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph VIL Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements," subparagraphs M and N for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary, judgment evidence.
20. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his
response in paragraph VIII: Summary of Evidence to Cross-Complaint RICO "Elements," in its
~Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 5 of 7 .
entirety for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence and that the evidence referred to has not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence..
21. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IX: RE: Christina Westfall's Representations to this Court subparagraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10-16 for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
-22. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IX: RE: Christina Westfall's Representations to this Court subparagraphs 7 and 8 for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence and that the evidence referred to has not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as -such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
23). Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph X: Summary in its entirety for the reason that: the allegations of evidence are nothing more than unsubstantiated factual and legal conclusions and do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence and that the evidence referred to has not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as such dc,;.-s not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 6 of 7
Prayer For Relief:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant request that the above objections be in all things sustained, and for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which this Movant may show herself justly entitled. Re pec u
tf Ily submitted,
FRANK C. FLEMING
State Bar No. 00784057
6611 Hillcrest Ave. #305
Dallas, Texas 75205-1301
(214) 373-1234
(214) 373-3232 (fax)
ATTORNEY FOR MOVANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Objection to Summary Judgment Evidence has this day been served upon all parties by hand delivery.
SIGNED this day of Septernbe 2001.
FRANK C. FLEMING
Christina Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 7 of
7