United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 9, 2005.
KERRY ZETTLEMOYER, et al. Plaintiffs,
PITTSBURGH GLAZING SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge
AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2005, upon consideration of
the order of court (Doc. 32) dated October 26, 2005, directing
defendant Pittsburgh Glazing Systems, Inc. ("Pittsburgh Glazing")
to file a response, on or before November 2, 2005, showing cause
why plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 26) should not
be granted, the order of court (Doc. 31) dated September 12,
2005, directing Pittsburgh Glazing to file a brief in opposition
to the motion for summary judgment and a corresponding statement
of facts on or before September 19, 2005, and plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 26), and it appearing that Pittsburgh
Glazing has not filed a brief in opposition or corresponding
statement of facts as of the date of this order, see L.R. 7.6
(providing that a party who fails to file a brief in opposition
to a motion "shall be deemed not to oppose such motion"); see
also L.R. 56.1 (stating that the moving party's statement of
facts pursuant to a motion for summary judgment will be deemed
"admitted unless controverted" by the opposing party), and that there are no genuine issues of
material fact,*fn1 see FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Blasi v.
Attorney Gen., 30 F. Supp. 2d 481, 484 (M.D. Pa. 1998) ("[T]he
district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment . . .
solely because the motion is unopposed; such motions are subject
to review for merit."); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) ("If the
adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if
appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party."
(emphasis added)), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion (Doc. 26) for summary judgment is
GRANTED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); see also L.R.
2. Plaintiffs shall submit, on or before November 23,
2005, an affidavit supporting the requested
liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's
fees.*fn2 See, e.g., In re Rite Aid Corp. v.
Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294, 301-02, 305 (3d Cir.
2005) (stating that courts are to conduct "robust"
analysis of reasonableness of proffered fees in light
of geographic area, nature of services provided, and
experience of attorneys). a. Defendant Pittsburgh Glazing Systems, Inc. shall
be permitted to file, on or before December 7, 2005,
an appropriate response to the affidavit.
b. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file, on or
before December 21, 2005, a reply to any such
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.