Court Opinion

ID: 9799496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:12:44.973901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:51.188378
License: Public Domain

JORDAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Given its summary judgment posture, this case is, for me, a close one. But for the reasons stated by Judge Friedman in his opinion for the court — an opinion I join — a reasonable jury could not have fairly found that Team Fritz was not one of Anchorage’s subcontractors. In summary judgment parlance, the evidence presented by Ms. Stephens was a “mere scintilla,” and did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the relationship between Anchorage and Team Fritz. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Of great significance to me is the undisputed fact that Anchorage (and not the Kirklands) paid Team Fritz for its work in setting the modular home on the foundation. If Team Fritz was not one of Anchorage’s subcontractors, Anchorage would have had no reason to pay Team Fritz.