inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F.Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.Cal.1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir.1987). ANALYSIS In its motion for summary judgment against Penny, Defendant argues that Penny’s undisputed interrogatory response disproves an essential element of her claim for negligence. Defendant further argues that because Keegan failed to comply with California’s financial responsibility laws, he cannot recover non-economic damages. In response, Penny contends that a genuine issue of material fact exists because Williams admitted responsibility for the accident in his deposition. Moreover, Kee-gan al (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Loeza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, 2014 WL
holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that district court did not err in summarily granting defendants motion for summary judgment pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff failed to respond to motion after district court had warned plaintiff that it would deem his failure to respond a consent to granting of motion holding that because plaintiff failed to advance evidence rebutting motion for summary judgment alongside a concession in their interrogatory response the district court did not err in granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed