Mendez-Soto v. Rodriguez

1 Citing brief

  1. Airframe Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Company et al

    REPLY to Response to 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 21, 2010

    Failure to provide a counterstatement “prevents the nonmovant from disputing the facts in the movant’s statement of facts.” McKenzie at *2, citing Euromodos, Inc. v. Zanella, Ltd., 368 F.3d 11, 15-16 (1st Cir. 2004); Mendez-Soto v. Rodriguez, 334 F. Supp. 2d 62, 71 (D.P.R. 2004) (“A nonmovant’s failure to present a statement of disputed facts, with specific citations to the record, justifies a court’s deeming as admitted the facts presented in the movant’s statement of undisputed facts”). The facts set forth in L-3’s statement of material facts are dispositive because they establish that Airframe failed to adduce any of the evidence necessary to prove infringement.