Ray et al v. Ford Motor Company
ORDER granting 113 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 118 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; All claims against Admiral Tool are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 4/27/09. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist) (vma, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION MEREDITH CHADWICK RAY and PHILLIP RAY Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, at al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This case is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 113) filed by Third Party Defendant, Admiral Tool & Manufacturing Company on April 9, 2009, asking that the court enter judgment in its favor on all claims asserted against it by Third Party Plaintiff, Visteon Corporation ("Visteon"). Visteon's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment states that it will not file anything in opposition to the motion, and that the motion is due to be granted (Doc. #117). Admiral Tool has also filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. #118). In addition, the court has reviewed the evidentiary material submitted by Admiral Tool and finds no question of fact as to any material issue raised by it as a ground for summary judgment. See United States v. One Piece of Real Property Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #113) and Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. #118) are GRANTED. All claims against Admiral Tool are DISMISSED with prejudice. Done this 27th day of April, 2009. /s/ W. Harold Albritton W. HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Civil Action No.: 3:07cv175-WHA (WO)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?