Legal Opinion

KUNTZMAN v. Wal-Mart

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided November 20, 2009No. 1:07 CV 209PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. 1 (‘Wal-Mart East”) has moved for summary judgment (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., DE # 53) and to strike portions of plaintiff Bethany Kuntzman’s (“Kuntzman”), surreply (Def.’s Rule 56 Mot. to Strike, DE # 66). As the motion to strike must be dealt with as a preliminary matter, the court will address it first.

Motion to Strike

After Wal-Mart East’s motion was fully briefed, Kuntzman moved for leave to file a sur-reply claiming that Wal-Mart’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment “assert[ed]…

2Cases cited77 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993

72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Rodgers v. Gary Community School Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2016
  2. Regan v. City of HammondDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2018
  3. Barnett v. Louisiana Department of HealthDistrict Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2023
  4. Davis v. Munster Medical Research Foundation, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2016
  5. Ellmann v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2019

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API