when the evidence reflects no genuine issues of material fact and the nonmovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). “A genuine issue of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.’ ” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). When, as here, the moving party bears the burden of proof on the relevant issues at trial, the moving party “must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in his favor.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original); see also Bernard v. Binnings Constr. Co., 741 F.2d 824, 827 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Then, the nonmoving party must present
holding that the board properly placed the burden of proving entitlement to benefits on the applicant holding that the burden of proving seaman status is on the party claiming benefits therefrom recognizing that majority of jurisdictions hold that the burden of proving an easement is on the party claiming such right and must be established by clear and convincing proof holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner