United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani, United States District Judge
Introduction and Procedural History
above captioned matter stems from a skiing accident that
occurred on March 15, 2014. Plaintiffs, Gyl and Ronald Cole,
represented by counsel, filed a two count Complaint against
Camelback Mountain Ski Resort ("Camelback"), and
two John Doe maintenance companies concerning injuries that
Plaintiff Gyl Cole sustained while skiing at Defendant
Camelback's skiing facility. (Doc. 1-1).
Plaintiffs'Complaint alleged that Defendant Camelback is
liable both for negligence (Count I), and for violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §
56:8-2, (Count II). By Memorandum and Order dated June 28,
2017, this Court dismissed Count II of the Complaint, leaving
only a claim of negligence pending. (Docs. 33, 34). Defendant
Camelback now moves for summary judgment on this remaining
claim. (Doc. 35). For the reasons that follow, this Court
will grant Defendant Camelback's Motion for Summary
Statement of Undisputed Facts
delving into the facts of this case, the Court must address a
preliminary matter. Local Rule 56.1 of this Court provides
A motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P.56, shall be accompanied by a separate, short and
concise statement of the material facts, in numbered
paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is no
genuine issue to be tried.
The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall
include a separate, short and concise statement of the
material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set
forth in the statement required in the foregoing paragraph,
as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue
to be tried.
Statements of material facts in support of, or in opposition
to, a motion shall include references to the parts of the
record that support the statements.
All material facts set forth in the statement required to be
served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted
unless controverted by the statement required to be served by
the opposing party.
accordance with this rule, in addition to submitting a Brief,
(Doc. 36), Defendant Camelback submitted a Statement of
Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment, (Doc. 37).
Initially, Plaintiffs submitted a Brief in Opposition, (Doc.
38), which did not contain a response to Defendant
Camelback's Statement of Material Facts. Nevertheless, an
additional document accompanying Plaintiffs' Brief in
Opposition appeared to request an extension of discovery
deadlines to allow Plaintiffs to depose two additional
witnesses. (Doc. 38 at 2-4).
Order dated August 10, 2017, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' Motion and stated that "all remaining
depositions shall be taken on or before September 20, 2017,
and Plaintiffs are granted leave to refile their Brief in
Opposition to Defendant Camelback's Motion for Summary
Judgment on or before that date." (Doc. 39). The Court
further ordered that "all future filings with this Court
shall be in strict compliance with the
Middle District of Pennsylvania's Local Rules."
(Id.). On October 3, 2017, almost two weeks after
Plaintiffs' deadline to file a new brief expired,
Plaintiffs filed a "Supplemental Letter Brief."
(Doc. 40). The Letter Brief, however, also failed to contain
a response to Defendant Camelback's Statement of Material
Facts. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have failed to respond
to Defendant Camelback's Statement of Material Facts, all
of those facts are now deemed admitted pursuant to Local Rule
56.1. With that in mind, the following facts are admitted:
March 14, 2014, Plaintiff Gyl Cole was skiing at Camelback
Mountain Ski Resort in Tannersville, Pennsylvania, with her
husband, Plaintiff Ronald Cole. (Doc. 37 at ¶¶ 1-2,
9; Dep. of Gyl Cole, Doc. 37-1 at 31). Plaintiff Gyl Cole was
an experienced skier and knew that it was her responsibility
to remain in control and stay on the trail. (Doc. 37 at
¶ 5). While skiing on a black diamond slope, Plaintiff
Gyl Cole skied off the trail and ran into a fence.
(Id. at ¶¶ 8-10; Dep. of Gyl Cole, Doc.
37-1 at 39).
Standard of Review
summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims
that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any
material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to
materiality, - [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v.