Hamilton v. Fidelity Warranty Services, No. 2:2015cv01142 - Document 24 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 9/9/16. (MRR, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hamilton v. Fidelity Warranty Services Doc. 24 FILED 2016 Sep-09 AM 10:12 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION EUGENIA W. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY WARRANTY SERVICES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:15-cv-01142-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on May 16, 2016. (Doc. 19). In support of its motion, Defendant argues summary judgment is due to be granted as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because she failed to perform and as to her fraud claim because it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 20 at 2).1 Defendant further argues Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her contention that she relied on any representation outside of the four corners of the service contract itself. (Id. at 3). On September 1, 2015, this court entered an initial order establishing certain deadlines for responding to motions. (Doc. 13). The initial order provides that when a motion for summary judgment is filed, the non-moving party must respond within twenty-one (21) days. (Id.). Plaintiff did not file any response to Defendant’s motion within the timeframe ordered by this court. On August 3, 2016, this court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the motion should not be granted as unopposed and gave her seven days to do so. (Doc. 21). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, nor has she responded to the court’s order to show cause why the motion should not be granted as unopposed. On August 9, 2016, this court dismissed the fraud claim – set forth in Count Two of the complaint – because it failed to meet the pleading standard and was barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 22). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is moot as to Plaintiff’s claim for fraud. 1 Dockets.Justia.com For the reasons stated above, the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) will be granted as unopposed. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 9th day of September, 2016. ______________________________ STACI G. CORNELIUS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
