Does the judge(s) have to be convinced about legal theory which remains viable under the asserted version of facts that the Petitioner puts forth in defense of a Motion for Summary Judgment re: Statute of Limitations in order to be permitted to advance to trial by jury?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 1. With respect to the Petitioner's Seventh Amendment rights, does the judge(s) have to be convinced about legal theory which remains viable under the asserted version of facts that the Petitioner puts forth in defense of a Motion for Summary " gudgment re: Statute of Limitations in order to be permitted to advance to trial by jury? , Case laws that will be the standard of review are: "No hint anywhere from the Supreme Court that the judge himself be convinced." Nader v. de Toledano (June 29, 1978 Court of , Appeals, District of Columbia); ; "[The] showing of ‘genuine issue for trial' is predicated upon the existence of a legal theory which remains viable under the asserted version of the facts, and which would entitlé the party opposing the motion (assuming his version to be'true) to a judgment as a matter of law." McGuire v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 399 F.2d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 1968); : . "A plaintiff opposing a defense motion for summary judgment, in order to make the evidentiary showing that will permit him : to advance to trial must ‘show that he has a plausible ground for the maintenance of the cause of action.'" Horne v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 344 F.2d 725, 729 (8th Cir. 1965); : Repsold v. New York Life Insurance Co., 216 F.2d 479, 483 (7th Cir. 1954); Pen~ken Gas & Oil Corp. v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., : 137 F.2d 871, 877 (6th Cir. 1943); 2. Does the judge(s) get to dismiss the facts as provided by the Petitioner as not being hard evidence because they are not convinced of the Petitioner's legal theory? : ii