Legal Opinion

Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Virginia

Decided February 10, 2012No. Case No. 7:11-cv-00218PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Ponani Sukumar (“Sukumar”) and Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. (“SCSRA”)’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 80). Defendant Nautilus, Inc. (“Nautilus”) filed an Opposition (ECF No. 89), to which the Plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 91). The parties were heard on December 21, 2011, and the matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.1

I. Factual and Procedural Background

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. United States v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stack v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2013
  2. Sestra Systems, Inc. v. BarTrack, Inc.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API