Legal Opinion
Dyson v. Winfield
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 21, 2000No. C.A. 97-1665(RCL), C.A. 97-1666(RL)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LAMBERTH, District Judge.
On July 28, 1997, Lakeshia Dyson, the plaintiff, filed a complaint against Pharma-cia & Upjohn (“P & U”), the defendant, alleging products liability, breach of warranty, and fraud. Now before the Court are several motions by the defendant, as well as one by the plaintiff. The defendant moves for summary judgment on each of the plaintiffs three allegations. The plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 56(f), to continue discovery of information relevant to her fraud claim. For the following reasons, this Court GRANTS each of the defendant’s motions.
BACKGROUND
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Dennis Diamond, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Brian Atwood, Administrator, Agency for International Development, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
- Feldman v. Lederle LaboratoriesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Delphi-Delco Electronics Systems v. M/V NEDLLOYD EUROPADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Miller v. Pfizer Inc.(Roerig Division)District Court, D. Kansas · 2002
- Milligan v. ClintonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.