Benge v. United Parcel Serv.

6 Citing cases

  1. UMB Bank v. Monson

    21-cv-2504-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sep. 13, 2023)

    See Tronsgard v. FBL Fin. Grp., Inc., 312 F.Supp.3d 982, 1009 (D. Kan. 2018) (“And, more importantly, plaintiffs don't respond substantively to defendants' argument that Kansas law bars plaintiffs' rescission claim. The court thus assumes that plaintiffs have abandoned their request for rescission.”); see also Hinsdale v. City of Liberal, 19 Fed.Appx. 749, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court's determination that plaintiff abandoned his equal protection claim by failing to address it in his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment); see also Benge v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2022 WL 7484632, at *4-5 (D. Kan. 2022) (acknowledging Tronsgard and Hinsdale as supporting assumption of abandonment when plaintiff completely fails to defend a claim); accord Cloud v. Wormuth, 2023 WL 4745730, at *10 (E.D. Okla. 2023) (“Courts may presume that a party abandons its claims by failing to substantively address it when opposing [dispositive motions].”).

  2. UMB Bank v. Monson

    21-cv-2504-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sep. 13, 2023)

    See Benge v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2022 WL 7484632, at *4 (D. Kan. 2022) (summarizing caselaw holding a party abandons a claim by failing to substantively respond to a motion to dismiss). 2. Law governing Count II.

  3. Cortishae-Etier v. Ford Motor Co.

    No. 23-3081-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See Tronsgard v. FBL Fin. Grp., Inc., 312 F.Supp.3d 982, 1009 (D. Kan. 2018) (dismissing plaintiffs' rescission claim because “plaintiffs don't respond substantively to defendant's argument . . . thus [the court] assumes that plaintiffs have abandoned their request for recission”). Benge v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2022 WL 7484632 *4 (D. Kan. 2022) (citing Hinsdale v. City of Liberal, Kan., 19 Fed.Appx. 749, 769 (10th Cir. 2001)). See Tronsgard, 312 F.Supp. at 1009 (dismissing plaintiff's abandoned recission claim); see also Hinsdale, 19 Fed.Appx. at 768-69 (upholding dismissal of plaintiff's equal protection claim because of plaintiff's failure to address defendant's argument); Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (“We will consider and discuss only those of her contentions that have been adequately briefed for our review.”)

  4. Oldridge v. City of Wichita

    6:21-cv-1284-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Apr. 4, 2023)

    Aside from one-off and conclusory assertions that various Defendants are liable as conspirators, Plaintiff failed to argue substantively for a conspiracy claim in his original responsive brief, thus abandoning that claim even if it existed in the first place. See, e.g., Benge v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2022 WL 7484632, at *4-5 (D. Kan. 2022) (summarizing caselaw showing a party abandons a claim by failing to substantively respond to a motion for summary judgment regarding that claim). Accordingly, the Court properly found this argument irrelevant.

  5. Ballou v. United Parcel Serv.

    No. 20-2640-JWB (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    The elements of a claim for negligent misrepresentation are: “(1) [t]he person supplying the false information failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating it; (2) the party receiving the false information reasonably relied on it; and (3) the person relying on the false information is a person or one of a group of persons for whose benefit and guidance the information is supplied or a person or one of a group of persons to whom the person supplying the information knew the information would be communicated by another; and (4) the party receiving the information suffered damages.” Benge v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:22-CV-002231-EFM, 2022 WL 7484632, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 13, 2022) (citing Rinehart v. Morton Bldgs., Inc., 297 Kan. 926, 305 P.3d 622, 630 (2013)). ii. Fraud/Intentional misrepresentation.

  6. Peak v. Yellow Corp.

    2:22-cv-02278-EFM-GEB (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2022)

    See Tronsgard, 312 F.Supp. at 1009. See id.; see also Benge v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2022 WL 7484632, at *4-5 (D. Kan. 2022) (acknowledging Tronsgard and Hinsdale as supporting dismissal when plaintiff completely fails to defend a claim).