From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Equipment Finance, LLC v. Hutchison

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 24, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01964 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 24, 2010)

Summary

denying movant's motion for summary judgment for failure to file a statement of undisputed material facts

Summary of this case from Loften v. Diolosa

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01964.

September 24, 2010


ORDER


NOW, this 24th day of September, 2010, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law on Behalf of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which motion and memorandum were filed January 13, 2010;
(2) Answer of Equipment Finance, LLC to Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which response and memorandum were filed January 26, 2010;
(3) Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum of Law Per the Order of Court, which memorandum was filed May 7, 2010;
(4) Plaintiff's Reply Per Order of Court to Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum of Law, which reply was filed May 21, 2010; and
(5) Agreed Upon Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed March 18, 2010;

after oral argument held April 21, 2010, and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.


Summaries of

Equipment Finance, LLC v. Hutchison

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 24, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01964 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 24, 2010)

denying movant's motion for summary judgment for failure to file a statement of undisputed material facts

Summary of this case from Loften v. Diolosa

denying movant's motion for summary judgment for failure to file a statement of undisputed material facts

Summary of this case from Landmesser v. Hazleton Area Sch. Dist.

denying summary judgment and finding "defendants' mere citation of the statute of frauds without any meaningful discussion of its applicability and without citing other authority in support of its argument . . . insufficient under Local Rule 7.1(c)"

Summary of this case from Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container Corp.

denying movant's motion for summary judgment for failure to file a statement of undisputed material facts

Summary of this case from Rocuba v. Mackrell

In Equipment Finance, Judge Gardner denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because they failed to adhere to Judge Gardner's Rule 16 Status Conference Order, which required any party filing a motion for summary judgment to file "a separate short concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts about which the moving party contends there is no genuine dispute."

Summary of this case from Price v. City of Phila.
Case details for

Equipment Finance, LLC v. Hutchison

Case Details

Full title:EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, Plaintiff v. STEVEN M. HUTCHISON, and BLUE HORIZON…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 24, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01964 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 24, 2010)

Citing Cases

Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container Corp.

Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1(c) could have justified dismissal of her motion without any…

Rocuba v. Mackrell

Here, De Long failed to file such a statement."); Equipment Finance, LLC v. Hutchison, 2010 WL 3791481…