Did the Fifth Circuit Court apply an incorrect standard of consideration by not considering the declarations of a non-moving party sufficient to establish issues of fact inconsistent with summary judgment and did it disregard other important summary judgment evidence that established material issues of fact?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case poses important questions regarding the procedural protections afforded to the non-moving party in a motion for summary judgment to have his summary judgment evidence accepted as true for the purpose of establishing material issues of fact, whether an otherwise valid Rule 54(b) motion is waived by not being asserted prior to final judgment so that relief available under Rule 54(b) cannot be available under Rule 59(e), and whether the court of appeal was correct in denying certification in violation of the applicable standard of consideration to the state supreme court where in order to make an Erie guess adverse to the nonmoving party the court below refused by name to follow a recent Louisiana intermediate court. Question I. Did the Fifth Circuit Court apply an incorrect standard of consideration by not considering the declarations of a non-moving party sufficient to ii establish issues of fact inconsistent with summary judgment and did it disregard other important summary judgment evidence that established material issues of fact? Question II: Did failure to file a Rule 54(b) motion prior to final judgment waive evidence of totally false assertions made to the district court that were “newly discovered” after issuance of the granting of the motion to set aside a default judgment but prior to final judgment, so that this dramatic, newly-discovered evidence could not be considered under Rule 59(e)? Question II: Did the court below fail to utilize the proper standard of consideration in denying the motion for certification without written reasons and without addressing the proper standard of consideration, thereby erroneously permitting an admitted Erie guess as to the applicable state law to stand uncorrected even iii though doing so required rejection by name of a recent Louisiana intermediate court of appeal decision? iv RULE 14.1 STATEMENT