![]() ![]() That motion is now fully briefed and before the court for decision. ![]() #99), the court also granted defendants leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. #128.) Because defendants had originally moved for summary judgment when this case was still in Ohio, and as part of sanctions against plaintiff for its discovery violations (see dkt. #71, 72.) This court previously granted summary judgment to defendants on certain of Betco’s claims, while allowing Betco to go forward with various claims against all the defendants for tortious misrepresentation and a single claim against Malcolm Peacock for an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio transferred the lawsuit here on February 28, 2014. Some years later, it brought suit in Ohio alleging that defendants had misrepresented the plant’s capabilities and the quality of its products. Holdings, LLC and Malcolm and Marilyn Peacock. ![]() Plaintiff Betco Corporation (“Betco”) purchased various assets for the manufacture of so-called bio-degradation products from the defendants B. 176 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BETCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |