Discussing Toptal, LLC v. Denis Grosz: NRCP 56(a) and Its Applicationby@legalpdf
108 reads

Discussing Toptal, LLC v. Denis Grosz: NRCP 56(a) and Its Application

by Legal PDFMarch 1st, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Explore the intricacies of summary judgment under NRCP 56(a) in legal proceedings, as illustrated by the case involving Toptal and Mr. Grosz. Gain insights into the application of California law and the determination of material facts. TLDR: Summary judgment was granted, in part, for Toptal in the case involving Mr. Grosz, as there were no genuine disputes over material facts, following the guidelines of NRCP 56(a) and California law.
featured image - Discussing Toptal, LLC v. Denis Grosz: NRCP 56(a) and Its Application
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

TOPTAL, LLC v. DENIS GROSZ Court Filing, retrieved on February 26, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 7.


“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought.” NRCP 56(a). “The court shall grant summary judgment if 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.” Id. “A factual dispute is genuine when the evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 731 (2005). “[T]he pleadings and other proof must be construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. The parties agree that California law governs the contracts at issue in this case. The Court finds that there are no genuine disputes as to any material fact and grants summary judgment, in part, for Toptal, on Count I of Mr. Grosz's counterclaim.

Continue Reading Here.

About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on October 11, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.