Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): has only raised the spectre that Euler, was aware of the Nature’s Own scheme, but has not produced adequate evidence on which the types of fraud requiring knowledge could be proven. In sum, MBFG has not met its burden to produce evidence on which a reasonable juror could find that Euler knew any of its alleged representations concerning Nature’s Own were false or reckless when-made, that Euler failed to disclose any similar facts from MBFG, or that Euler had actual knowledge that Nature’s Own was engaged.in a fraudulent scheme. Accordingly, MBFG cannot prove an element essential to its claims for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and aiding and abetting a fraud. Euler is therefore entitled to summary judgment on those claims. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (<HOLDING>); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 210 F.3d at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 56c requires summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys ease and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial (B) holding that the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case (C) recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case (D) holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue (E) holding that rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment after adequate time for discovery and upon motion against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial
Output (English): holding that the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case