From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Zeeky Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 7, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-4253 (E.D. Pa. May. 7, 2010)

Summary

noting that Local Rule 7.1 requires that uncontested motions for summary judgment be reviewed under the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)

Summary of this case from Brunson v. Peake

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-4253.

May 7, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 7th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of Defendants' uncontested Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11), it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants' Motion is GRANTED;
(2) Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(3) Counts II through XIII of Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Summaries of

Smith v. Zeeky Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 7, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-4253 (E.D. Pa. May. 7, 2010)

noting that Local Rule 7.1 requires that uncontested motions for summary judgment be reviewed under the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)

Summary of this case from Brunson v. Peake
Case details for

Smith v. Zeeky Corporation

Case Details

Full title:J.W. SPORTY SMITH, JR., Plaintiff, v. ZEEKY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 7, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 09-4253 (E.D. Pa. May. 7, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wynn-Mason v. Levas Communications, LLC

Additionally, despite Rule 56(c)'s clear instruction that "a party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely…

Vartelov v. Acura

; Dasti v. Bloom Auto Sales, No. 19-10417, 2021 WL 7081336, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2021) (declining to…