Legal Opinion
Kinsey v. Cendant Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 9, 2008No. 04 Civ. 582PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Cendant Corporation (“Cen-dant”), Fairfield Resorts, Inc. (“Fairfield”) and FFD Development Company, LLC (“FFD”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) have moved under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Douglas Kinsey (“Kinsey” or the “Plaintiff’) alleging negligent misrepresentation and negligence. On the findings and conclusions set forth below, the motion is granted as to Cendant and Fairfield and denied as to FFD.
The controversy over the expiration date of stock options between Kinsey, a former employee of…
2Cases cited15 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Lorenzo CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRM COPY CENTERS CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gray v. WACKENHUT SERVICES, INC.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Kinsey v. Cendant Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008