Beringer v. Biomet, Inc., 3:17-CV-245 RLM. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20181218b68
Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. , District Judge . Shelagh Beringer sued Biomet for damages in connection with the alleged failure of her Biomet M2a-38 hip implant. Biomet moved for summary judgment, arguing that her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Ms. Beringer didn't respond to that motion, or identify any disputed material facts which would preclude the entry of judgment for Biomet, or move for an extension of time to do so. When reviewing a motion fo
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. , District Judge . Shelagh Beringer sued Biomet for damages in connection with the alleged failure of her Biomet M2a-38 hip implant. Biomet moved for summary judgment, arguing that her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Ms. Beringer didn't respond to that motion, or identify any disputed material facts which would preclude the entry of judgment for Biomet, or move for an extension of time to do so. When reviewing a motion for..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., District Judge.
Shelagh Beringer sued Biomet for damages in connection with the alleged failure of her Biomet M2a-38 hip implant. Biomet moved for summary judgment, arguing that her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Ms. Beringer didn't respond to that motion, or identify any disputed material facts which would preclude the entry of judgment for Biomet, or move for an extension of time to do so.
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). But when a party fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, its failure "constitutes an admission . . . that there are no disputed issues of genuine fact warranting a trial." Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, I deem Ms. Beringer's failure to respond as an admission that Biomet's version of the facts is true, find that Ms. Beringer's claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation in Utah, and GRANT Biomet's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
