Legal Opinion
A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 18, 2009No. 06 Civ. 2778Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiff A.P. MOLLER MAERSK A/S d/b/a MAERSK SEALAND (“Plaintiff’ or “Maersk”) has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., and for sanctions against defendant Comereializadora de Calidad Sociedad Anónima (“Defendant” or “Quality Print”). No opposition having been filed, the motion for sanctions is granted, and the motion for summary judgment is granted in part.
I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS
The facts as described below have been set forth in Maersk’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Statement”), 1 the affidavits referenced therein, and Maersk’s June 30, 2008…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Blair & Co., Inc. v. GottdienerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Stephen King v. Allied Vision, Ltd. And Innovation Books, a Division of the Innovation Corporation, New Line Cinema CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Duane Reade Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Morris v. LindauCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.