Wartsila Technology Oy Ab et al v. Coastal Seal Services, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 6/16/2017. (nvc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO.: 5:16-cv-00198-RLV-DSC
WÄRTSILÄ TECHNOLOGY OY AB and )
WÄRTSILÄ DEFENSE, INC.
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COASTAL SEAL SERVICES, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiffs Wärtsilä Technology OY
AB’s and Wärtsilä Defense, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17), which seeks
judgment in their favor on Defendant Coastal Seal Services, LLC’s (“Coastal Seal”) Fifth Defense.
Subsequent to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal
with Prejudice of the Fifth Defense (“Stipulation”). (Doc. 22). The Stipulation addresses all the
relief sought in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Doc. 17; Doc. 17-1 at 1, 6). As a
result, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) will be DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant Coastal Seal, in its Answer, asserted a Fifth Defense (“No Service of Process”):
“Attempted Service of Process on Coastal Seal was insufficient as Plaintiffs did not exercise the
required due diligence in locating Coastal Seal’s registered agent.” (Doc. 14 at 10). In January
2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment in their favor and against
Coastal Seal “on the defense of insufficient service of process.” (Doc. 17 at 1). The Parties
subsequently stipulated to “voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Defendant Coastal Seal Services,
LLC’s Fifth Defense - No Service of Process - only. The stipulation does not affect any other
claims or defenses raised by any party in this litigation.” (Doc. 22 at 1 (emphasis in original)).

The Parties have not requested this Court to act with respect to the Stipulation.
“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or the part
of each claim or defense – on which summary judgment is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis
added). The Plaintiffs limited their Motion for Summary Judgment to Coastal Seal’s Fifth
Defense. Thus, the Stipulation resolves the sole matter raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, rendering that Motion moot.
The Court, therefore, will deny the Motion for Summary Judgment in light of the
Stipulation. This Order shall not affect the rights of the Parties to file subsequent motions for
summary judgment consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the
Western District of North Carolina.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDRED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
17) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Signed: June 16, 2017

2