Filed: Mar. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2016
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represen
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represent..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the District Court's March 31, 2015 grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellees. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
"This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment by the district court de novo." Lawrence + Mem'l Hosp. v. Burwell, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 423702, at *5 (2d Cir. Feb 4, 2016). Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough March 31, 2015 opinion and order. See TradeWinds Airlines, Inc. v. Soros, 101 F.Supp.3d 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of plaintiffs-appellants' arguments on appeal and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's March 31, 2015 judgment.