Finally, the Court evaluates Redline’s motion for partial summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Nukon defendants. Next, the Court addresses the Nukon defendants’ motion for summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Redline. 2 brief overview of the parties’ summary judgment evidence. 1–2, ¶¶ 4–5), for purposes of this opinion, Redline’s motion to strike, (Doc. Because the Court did not need to rely on Mr. The Court construes Redline’s motion to strike as an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2). Accordingly, objections to evidence supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment should be made in the objecting party’s brief. At the summary judgment stage, “ party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” FED. 2013) (“The plain meaning of show that objecting to the admissibility of evidence supporting a summary judgment motion is now a part of summary judgment procedure, rather than a separate motion to be handled preliminarily.”) (citing Cutting Underwater Technologies USA, Inc. 56(c)(2) advisory committee note (2010 amendments) (“There is no need to make a separate motion to strike.”) Campbell v. Then, the Court provides a 2 Effective December 1, 2010, motions to strike summary judgment evidence no longer are appropriate. First, the Court outlines the standard for a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. The opinion is organized in four sections. This opinion addresses the issues that the Court may resolve as a matter of law. Those disputes are genuine, and they must be decided by a jury. 64).2 Many of the claims in this matter involve readily-apparent disputes of material fact. Redline also has filed a motion to strike certain parts of Metin Ertufan’s affidavits. Redline has moved for summary judgment on portions of its breach of contract and fraud claims, on part of the Nukon defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim, and on the entirety of the Nukon defendants’ unjust enrichment and slander counterclaims. 1 The Nukon defendants assert counterclaims against Redline for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and slander. The Court uses “Nukon Turkey,” “Nukon US,” and “Moore Machine Tools,” respectively, to refer to these parties. NUKONUS, LLC and Moore Machine Tools, LLC. 1 Redline asserts claims against Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanayi Ve Tic, A.S. The Nukon defendants have moved for summary judgment on Redline’s claims.
#REDLINE STEEL COMPANY SERIES#
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case arises from a series of business transactions between Redline Steel, LLC and the Nukon defendants regarding the purchase and operation of industrial laser-cutting machines.1 In its complaint, Redline asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of statutory warranties, negligent repair, and fraud. NUKONUS, LLC and MOORE MACHINE TOOLS, LLC, } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 5:19-cv-01445-MHH Defendants. NUKON LAZER MAKINE METAL SANAYI VE TIC, A.S.
OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION REDLINE STEEL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Nukon Lazer Makine Metal Sanayi ve Tic AS et al Doc.
0 kommentar(er)
