KUNTZMAN v. Wal-Mart
District Court, N.D. Indiana
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
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- 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
- Rodgers v. Gary Community School Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2016
- Regan v. City of HammondDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2018
- Barnett v. Louisiana Department of HealthDistrict Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2023
- Davis v. Munster Medical Research Foundation, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2016
- Ellmann v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2019
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.