Gometz v. Barber, No. Cv01-0095135 S (Jul. 10, 2002)
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs alleges that, after a discussion with the defendant, Attorney Susan Patton filed on behalf of her clients, a mechanic's lien on the property of the plaintiffs, with the intent to harm them.
Summary judgment is appropriate when based on the pleadings, affidavits and summary evidence submitted, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See, Connell v. Colwell,
The court after its review of the pleadings and affidavits concludes that the plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue of a material fact and that the motion for summary judgment should be granted.
The plaintiffs' complaint and affidavit contain mere assertions, speculations and subjective beliefs that the defendant acted, in concert with Attorney Susan Patton Fox, with the intent to damage the plaintiffs. See, Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking House Company,
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and all three counts of the plaintiffs' complaint are dismissed.
Prior to arguments of counsel, the plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit which the court dismissed as untimely filed.
___________________ SPALLONE JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE CT Page 8433
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.