Unpublished Dispositiondavid A. Kersh, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dayton Hudson Stores, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 880 F.2d 414 (6th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 880 F.2d 414 (6th Cir. 1989) July 31, 1989

Before MERRITT and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

David Kersh appeals pro se the order granting summary judgment to the defendant in this diversity contract action, as well as orders denying his motions for partial summary judgment and reconsideration.

Seeking monetary damages, plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff was bound by a stipulation which ratified the settlement in full of the account in question.

Upon consideration, we conclude that defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and reconsideration were without merit. Plaintiff raises several issues in his brief which do not affect the determination that the settlement was ratified by stipulation. Factual disputes regarding irrelevant issues do not preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The only pertinent argument raised by plaintiff is that the attorney who signed the stipulation was not authorized to do so. However, he failed to present any evidence in support of this allegation. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not entitled to a trial on the basis of mere allegations, but must present significant probative evidence. Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 861 (6th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was also meritless, as the stipulation expressly ratified the settlement in full of the account.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Appellee's motion to strike the joint appendix and for imposition of sanctions is denied.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.