Source: http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180315_0000278.DCT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:56:06+00:00

Document:
FindACase | O'Reilly v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc.
O'Reilly v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc.
BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC. Defendant.
Plaintiff John T. O'Reilly brought this action against Defendant BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. after suffering an eye injury while shopping at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. The parties have each moved for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's breach of contract and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) claims.
For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment and DENY Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligence claim as time-barred but allowing Plaintiff's breach of contract and CUTPA claims to proceed. (ECF No. 37.) Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but filed its own motion for summary judgment on December 15, 2017. (ECF No. 44.) The following facts are taken from the parties' respective Local Rule 56(a) Statements and the exhibits. (ECF No. 35-2; ECF No. 46.) The facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.
“Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “In making that determination, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). On summary judgment a court must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.” Caronia v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 715 F.3d 417, 427 (2d Cir. 2013). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986). If the moving party carries its burden, “the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.” Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 358 (2d Cir. 2011).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.