Peiker Acustic, Inc. et al v. Kennedy

Filing 97

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants Counterclaims 74 is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/24/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02083-REB-MJW
PEIKER ACUSTIC, INC., and
PEIKER ACUSTIC GMBH & CO. KG,
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
PATRICK KENNEDY,
Defendant/Counterclaimant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s Counterclaims [#74]1 filed July 15, 2011. I have jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). Having reviewed the
motion, defendant’s response, and the attendant reply, as well as the apposite
arguments, authorities, and evidence presented by the parties, it is apparent that there
exist genuine issues of material fact that are not appropriate for summary resolution.2

1

“[#74]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

The issues raised by and inherent to the motion for summary judgment are fully briefed,
obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Thus, the motion stands submitted on the
briefs. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and (d). Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th
Cir.1988) (holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by court's review of
documents submitted by parties).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
on Defendant’s Counterclaims [#74], filed July 15, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated February 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2