Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00955/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00955-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST )

COMPANY, successor in )

interest to Colonial Bank )

by acquisition of assets )

from FDIC as Receiver for )

Colonial Bank, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:08cv955-MHT

) (WO) 

SYNTELLECT, INC., a ) 

Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust

Company’s motion to strike (doc. no. 106) is denied. 

In resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary

judgment, the court has implicitly considered the motion

to strike as notice of objection to the evidence

described. See Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F.

Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Anderson v.

Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n. 1 (S.D.

Case 2:08-cv-00955-MHT-WC Document 112 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
Ga. 1993). The court is capable of sifting evidence, as

required by the summary-judgment standard, without resort

to an exclusionary process, and the court will not allow

the summary-judgment stage to degenerate into a battle of

motions to strike. 

DONE, this the 22nd day of July, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00955-MHT-WC Document 112 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2