Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): employee status, “summary judgment is appropriate when the remaining factors clearly point to borrowed-employee status.” Billizon, 993 F.2d at 106; Brown, 984 F.2d at 678 n. 5 (“We recognize and reiterate that the terms of a contract and the related factual issues do not automatically prevent summary judgment or direct verdict. If the remaining borrowed employee factors overwhelmingly point to borrowed employee status, a summary judgment or direct verdict is appropriate.”); Alexander v. Chevron, U.S.A, 806 F.2d 526, 529 (5th Cir.1986) (“[T]he terms of the contract between the borrowing employer and payroll employer does not ordinarily provide a sufficient basis to deny summary judgment when the remaining Ruiz factors point toward borrowed servant status.”); Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 358-59 (<HOLDING>). Lomeli argues that because Southwest failed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law (B) holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment (C) holding that this court has power to direct the entry of summary judgment when it would be just under the circumstances (D) holding despite contractual language that sufficient basic factual ingredients are undisputed to warrant the entry of summary judgment (E) holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo
Output (English): holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment