ALI-ABA Topical Courses Trade Secrets From the ... - ALI CLE

92intention to return to work part-time at SFDG on March 17, 2011. (Id. 30, 31.) On March 8,2011, SFDG’s lawyer responded by letter to Maremont’s attorneys advising them that SFDG hadfilled Maremont’s position after her father directed SFDG employees not to contact Maremontunder any circumstances. (Id. 32.) By March 17, 2011, a public relations firm known as “JoChicago” had hired Maremont. (Id. 33.)SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDSummary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine disputeas to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonablejury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In determining summary judgmentmotions, courts must view facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if thereis a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing thatthere is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). After “a properly supported motion for summaryjudgment is made, the adverse party ‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuineissue for trial.’” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (quotation omitted).ANALYSISI. Lanham Act Claim – Count IIn Count I of her Second Amended Complaint, Maremont alleges a false associationclaim, also known as a false endorsement claim, under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §6