HOPE HUERTA as Next Friend and Parent of BLANCA M. VALDEZ-HUERTA, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. BIOSCRIP PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-25, Defendants. (case where no direct evidence compounds causes injury)

HOPE HUERTA as Next Friend and Parent of BLANCA M. VALDEZ-HUERTA, a minor, Plaintiffs,
v.
BIOSCRIP PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-25, Defendants.

Civ. No. 09-485 RHS/LFG.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

August 19, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT HAYES SCOTT, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant BioScrip Pharmacy Services, Inc.'sMotion for Summary Judgment, filed May 24, 2010 [Doc. 182], brought pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Having the considered the parties' submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the motion.

I. Legal standard.

Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). Under Rule 56(c), "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Rather, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. at 248. A dispute about a material fact is genuine only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

The Court must "view the evidence and draw any inferences in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, but that party must identify sufficient evidence which would require submission of the case to a jury." Williams v. Rice,983 F.2d 177, 179 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-52). The requirement of viewing "the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . does not mean, however, that we may disregard undisputed evidence that favors the moving party." Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 478 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is properly regarded

continue to read here