Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ZETTLEMOYER v. PITTSBURGH GLAZING SYSTEMS

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania


November 9, 2005.

KERRY ZETTLEMOYER, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
PITTSBURGH GLAZING SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge

ORDER

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. 56.1.
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 response.
20051109

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.