CAUSE NO. 00-00619
THE LAW OFFICES OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. §
§
Plaintiff. §
V.
§ 1~4th JUDICIAL'DISTkICT§ J Tx.
UDOBIRNBAUM, §
Defendant. § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS
G. DAVID WESTFALL98
OBJECTIONS TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
OF RESPONDENT, UDO BIRNBAUM
COMES NOW, G. David Westfall, (hereinafter referr--d to as "Movant"), Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause and files this his objections 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:
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
G. David 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 evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IV: Birnbaurn'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 Westfall'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 Documents, 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, ftirther 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),
G. David Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 2 of 7
(d), (e), (f), and (g), for the reasons that: the exhibits are not 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 VII: 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 consti~ute 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 Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements,"
G. David Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary 0-udgment - 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 summary judgment evidence.
13. 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 D, E, F, and G for thereason 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 VII: 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 VII: Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements,"
G. David 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 been 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 VII: Summary of Evidence to Third Party Plaintiff RICO "Elements,"
G. David Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Jiudgment - Page 5 of 7
subparagraphs 0, subparts (1), (4), (5), (6) 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.
21. 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 0, subparts (2) and (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 that the depositions referred to have not been properly authenticated or attached to the response and as such does not constitute proper summary judgment evidence.
22. 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 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.
23. Movant objects to the summary judgment evidence referred to by Respondent in his response in paragraph IX: RE: David Westfall's Representa.ions to this Court subparagraphs I 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.,
24. 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 conc'.asions and do not constitute proper
G. David Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 6 of 7
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.
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 himself justly entitled. Respectfally submitted,
GA)avid-W-estfall
State Bar No. 21224000
5646 Milton Street, Suite 520
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 741-4741
(214) 741-4746 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 September, 200
G.
bAVID WESTFALL. G. David Westfall's Objections to Response to Summary Judgment - Page 7 of 7