Saucier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire L.L.C. et al
Filing
90
ORDER granting 50 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 57 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 12/16/2008 (dtj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION NICHOLAS SAUCIER and JASON SAUCIER VERSUS PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-CV-151-DCB-JMR
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, L.L.C. f/k/a BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.; MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DEFENDANTS
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (Mazda) (Docs. 50, 57) on the Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim (First Claim) and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Second Claim) are before the Court. The
motions raise the statute of limitations as a defense. The Plaintiffs have notified the Court that they do not oppose the motions. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Ford's and Mazda's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) on the
Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim (First Claim) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Second Claim) are granted. 2.
Ford and Mazda are granted partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach
of warranty claim (First Claim) and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Second Claim) because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 3.
The Plaintiffs' other claims remain pending.
16th day of December , 2008.
SO ORDERED, this the
s/ David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Submitted by:
Wynn E. Clark 2510 16th Street Gulfport, MS 39501 (228) 575-9996 (Office) (228) 575-9030 (Fax) Miss. Bar No. 6279 E-Mail: wynnclark@bellsouth.net
Paul V. Cassisa, Jr. P. O. Box 1138 Oxford, MS 38655
(662) 234-7236 (Office) Miss. Bar No. 5921 E-Mail: cassisa@dixie-net.com
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?