Middendorf Sports v. Top Rank, Inc. et al
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 138 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (DCD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MIDDENDORF SPORTS, a Maryland
Sole Proprietorship,
8:17-CV-11
Plaintiff,
vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TOP RANK, INC., a Nevada
corporation, and TERENCE
CRAWFORD, an individual,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Middendorf Sport's motion for partial
summary judgment (filing 138). The Court will grant that motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) allows the Court to grant summary judgment as to
some issues but not as to others. Upon doing so, the Court may "enter an order
stating any material fact—including an item of damages or other relief—that
is not genuinely in dispute," and thereby treat such a fact "as established in
the case." Rule 56(g). Here, Middendorf asks the Court to declare that the 2011
Agreement and Release obliges Top Rank, Inc. to pay Middendorf eight percent
of Terence "Bud" Crawford's purse for any Crawford title defense that Top
Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement. Filing 138 at 1-2.
The Court already reached that conclusion when denying Top Rank's
motion for summary judgment. Filing 123 at 15. And having reviewed its
reasoning, the Court stands by that conclusion. See filing 123. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Middendorf's motion for partial summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Middendorf's motion for partial summary judgment (filing
138) is granted.
2.
The unambiguous language of the 2011 Agreement and
Release obliges Top Rank to pay Middendorf eight percent of
Crawford's purse for any Crawford title defense that Top
Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
-2-
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?