THE KNIT WITH v. KNITTING FEVER, INC. et al

Filing 401

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT KFI DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT 3 OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF THE 2005 DELIVERY OF CASHMERINOS (DOC. 362) IS GRANTED IN PART AND PARAGRAPH 4 OF THAT EXHIBIT IS STRICKEN; PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT B TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY (DOC. 352) IS DENIED. THE KFI DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I AND II OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT (DOC. 327) IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE UNDISPUTED FACTUAL QUESTION OF THE 2005 DELIVERY OF CASHMERINOS (DOC. 350) IS DENIED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE KFI DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON COUNTS I AND II OF THE COMPLAINT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 6/27/12. 6/28/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE KNIT WITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNITTING FEVER, INC.,
DESIGNER YARNS, LTD.,
FILATURA PETTINATA V.V.G. DI
STEFANO VACCARI & C., SION
ELALOUF, DIANE ELOUF, JEFFREY J.
DENECKE, JR., JAY OPPERMAN, and
DEBBIE BLISS,
Defendants.
THE KNIT WITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
EISAKU NORO & CO., LTD.,
KNITTING FEVER, INC.,
SION ELALOUF, DIANE ELALOUF,
and JAY OPPERMAN,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-4221

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-4775

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of (1) the Motion by
Defendants Knitting Fever, Inc. (“KFI”), Sion Elalouf, Diane Elalouf, Jeffrey J. Denecke, Jr., and
Jay Opperman (collectively, the “KFI Defendants”) to Strike Exhibit 3 of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Factual Question of the 2005 Delivery of Cashmerinos (Docket No.
362) and Plaintiff The Knit With’s (“TKW”) Response (Docket No. 377); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion
to Strike Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Breach of Warranty

(Docket No. 352), and the KFI Defendants’ Response (Docket No. 373); (3) the KFI Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 327),
Plaintiff’s Response (Docket No. 353), and the KFI Defendants’ Reply Brief (Docket No. 382);
and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Undisputed Factual Question of the
2005 Delivery of Cashmerinos (Docket No. 350), the KFI Defendants’ Response (Docket No.
364), Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Docket No. 380), and the KFI Defendants’ Sur-reply (Docket No.
398),1 it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The KFI Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 3 of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Factual Question of the 2005 Delivery of Cashmerinos
(Docket No. 362) is GRANTED IN PART and paragraph 4 of that Exhibit is
STRICKEN;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment for Breach of Warranty (Docket No. 352) is DENIED;

3.

The KFI Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 327) is GRANTED;

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Undisputed Factual Question of
the 2005 Delivery of Cashmerinos (Docket No. 350) is DENIED; and

5.

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the KFI Defendants and against Plaintiff
on Counts I and II of the Complaint.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

1

As noted in the Memorandum accompanying this Order, Plaintiff also filed a “Brief in
Sur-reply Supporting Summary Judgment on the 2005 Cashmerino Delivery” (Docket No. 392).
Because this document was not authorized by this Court’s May 3, 2012 Order, the Court will not
consider it.