Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180511_0000076.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:57:42+00:00

Document:
FindACase | McMahon v. Verizon New England Inc.
VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., alias, Defendant.
Before the Court are multiple motions: (1) Defendant Verizon New England, Inc., alias's (“Verizon”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant's Motion”) (ECF No. 12); (2) Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff's Cross Motion”) (ECF No. 17); (3) Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Certain of Defendant's Statement of Disputed Facts and the Declaration of James R. Fennell (“Plaintiff's Motion To Strike”) (ECF No. 22); and (4) Defendant's Motion To Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of his Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Defendant's Motion To Strike”) (ECF No. 25).
On November 9, 2015, McMahon filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) in state court. Verizon timely removed the case to this Court, based on diversity jurisdiction, on December 4, 2015. The motions before the Court followed.
“Summary judgment is warranted where ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Matusevich v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., 782 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting McGair v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 693 F.3d 94, 99 (1st Cir. 2012)). “Where, as here, there are cross motions for summary judgment, [the Court] evaluate[s] each motion independently and determine[s] ‘whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not disputed.'” Id. (quoting Barnes v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, N.A., 370 F.3d 164, 170 (1st Cir. 2004)). Further, in viewing each motion separately, the Court “draw[s] all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Cooper v. D'Amore, 881 F.3d 247, 249-50 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Fadili v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 772 F.3d 951, 953 (1st Cir. 2014)).

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