Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Olympus Services, LLC v. Greener

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 24, 2019

OLYMPUS SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
TRENTON GREENER, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY [1] (DOC. 9) AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A PROPOSED INJUNCTION ORDER AND STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I.

         This is an employment case. Plaintiff Olympus Services, LLC d/b/a Project Management Training Institute is suing defendant Trenton Greener[2] alleging he violated a non-compete provision in his employment agreement, failed to return plaintiff's property, and disseminated plaintiff's confidential information. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief and asserts the following claims:

Count I - breach of contract
Count II - common law conversion
Count III - statutory conversion
Count IV - unjust enrichment
Count V - injunctive relief

         Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim alleging breach of contract.

         Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.[3]Defendant has not responded to the motion and the time for responding has long passed.[4] Accordingly, the Court will proceed to decision on the motion based on plaintiff's motion papers.[5] For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

         II. Summary Judgment

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A moving party may meet that burden “by ‘showing' - that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

         Significantly, Rule 56 also provides the consequences of failing to properly support or address a fact:

         If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.