Whether the lower courts violated the standards set in Tolan v. Cotton, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, and Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services when deciding the summary judgment motion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This Court in Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 188 L. Ed. 2d 895, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 1068. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986), and Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 112 8. Ct. 2072, 504 U.S. 451, 119 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1992) set the standards that must be followed by the lower courts when deciding motions for summary judgment. Both the Fifth Circuit and the District Court have failed to follow these standards and have ignored the following directives: (1) the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor; (2) the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the opposing party; (3) the court must properly acknowledge and address all of the key evidence offered by the party opposing the motion; (4) the court should not make findings of fact; (5) the judge’s function in summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial; (6) evidence must be viewed as a whole, and not in individual pieces; and (7) the court must determine whether a fair minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on all of the evidence presented. The Fifth Circuit has decided important federal questions relating to summary judgments in a way that conflicts with decisions of this Court. (Rule 10(¢) Supreme Court Rules). The Questions presented are: I. Did the Fifth Circuit, in accepting the District Court’s findings of fact, probable cause of the fall and legal authority, violate the basic principles of Tolan v. Cotton, u 1348. Ct. 1861, 188 L. Ed. 2d 895, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), and Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986), thus violating guarantees of due process when it granted defendants motion for summary judgment and: (a) failed to acknowledge and address key evidence presented by the Petitioners, opting instead to consider only an obscure, unclear and inconclusive Video of the incident, completely ignoring the vast array of evidence that proves the cause of Petitioner’s fall; (b) failed to consider post-accident or forensic evidence (including Romano’s Photograph which is a major piece of evidence that compliments the Video) secured during the accident investigation to determine probable cause of the fall; (© isolated a single piece of evidence, the surveillance video (“Video”) (See Thumb Drive filed separately with Clerk), instead of considering all of the evidence in its entirety, including the Romano photograph depicting the corner of the display ramp which the courts claim caused the fall. In other words, armed with an obscure, unclear and inconclusive video of the fall, are the lower courts permitted to ignore other key evidence that may directly impact and clarify the video evidence? (d) failed to draw justifiable inferences in Petitioners’ favor in a light most favorable to Petitioners; (e) weighed the evidence and made findings of fact to arrive at the probable cause of Petitioner’s fall by viewing only the surveillance video and no other evidence; and (f) never determined through a complete review of the key evidence whether a fair minded jury could return a verdict for the Petitioners? II. Did the Fifth Circuit, in accepting the District Court’s findings of fact, cause of the fall and decision, violate Petitioners’ right to fair and adequate due process by not considering all of Petitioners’ causes of action enumerated in its Complaints (App. 1la-17a), (including violations of Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution), relying only on a single law which applies solely to the merchant defendants and not to the individually named defendants which were also summarily dismissed? (See LA-R.S. 9:2800.6(b)(1), Louisiana’s Merchant Liability law). Neither the District Court nor the Fifth Circuit addressed the alleged violation