16‐1707 Pa. Mfrs.’ Assoc. Ins. Co. v. Riccelli Enters., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 9th day of May, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 11 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’ 12 ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 14 Plaintiff‐Appellee, 15 16 v. No. 16‐1707‐cv 17 18 RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, INC., 19 20 Defendant‐Counter‐Claimant‐Counter‐ 21 Defendant‐Appellant. 22 23 24 25 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1  1 FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLEE: KEVIN E. HULSLANDER (Karen G. 2 Felter, on the brief), Smith, Sovik, 3 Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse, 4 NY. 5 6 FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: ANTHONY J. PIAZZA (Mark T. Whitford, 7 Jr., on the brief), Barclay Damon, LLP, 8 Rochester, NY. 9 10 11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern 12 District of New York (Brenda K. Sannes, Judge). 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 14 DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 15 Riccelli Enterprises, Inc. (“Riccelli”) appeals from the orders and judgment of 16 the District Court (Sannes, J.) denying Riccelli’s motion for an extension of the 17 deadline for the production of documents, granting summary judgment in favor of 18 Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (“PMA”) on its breach 19 of contract claims, and awarding PMA damages and prejudgment interest. We 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to 21 which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 22 After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for 23 substantially the reasons articulated by the District Court in its orders of May 26, 24 2015, December 9, 2015, and May 6, 2016. 2 1 We have considered all of Riccelli’s arguments not specifically addressed by 2 the District Court and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing 3 reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 3