Lanier disputes which he had authority within the staffing agencies and disagrees which he handled the D.C. businesses.
Here, Lanier takes problem because of the region court’s statements that he “conceded his supervisory authority” over two associated with the “staffing” agencies—Pinnacle and DOLMF—and which he “continued become earnestly associated with the D.C. businesses’ administration.” Order at 43-44, 50 (Doc. 281).
It doesn’t matter how Lanier chooses to characterize their relationships using the staffing agencies and also the D.C. organizations, evidence suggests that he had been “squarely during the center of the deceptive enterprise.” Id. at 74. Lanier offered no proof to dispute which he along with his co-defendants put up the D.C. companies, which he administered the “of counsel” community on the part of those businesses, which he permitted the businesses to gain access to their records to process consumer repayments, or which he proceeded to manage the principals regarding the businesses as “friends.” Id. at 49-50. Therefore, Lanier’s denial is inadequate proof “for a jury to come back a verdict” inside the benefit, and therefore summary judgment ended up being appropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
Finally, Lanier contends that the region court erred to locate that “the many example that is egregious of conduct by Lanier Law therefore the DC firms was making use of the commercial Stimulus Flyer.” Purchase at 51 (Doc. 281). Lanier contends that the region court wrongly determined he had utilized the Flyer, in light of their testimony denying “any participation with any advertising materials.” Appellant’s Br. at 38 (emphasis omitted). He contends that this dispute about whether he had been myself associated with the Flyer needed the region court to deny the FTC’s summary judgment motion. Continue reading “Lanier’s utilization of the Stimulus that is“Economic just isn’t a Material Fact Sufficient to Preclude a Finding of Overview Judgment.”