IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 05cv01570WYDPAC
A.P. MOLLER MAERSK A/S d/b/a MAERSK SEALAND, a Danish corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TINGEY TRADING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [# 13], filed June 15, 2006, and Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [# 14], also filed June 15, 2006. Defendant Tingey Trading
International, Inc. (“Tingey Trading”) did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion and, in
fact, at the final pretrial conference held by Magistrate Judge Coan, Defendant stated
that the motion was unopposed and confessed. See Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order
dated Aug. 18, 2006 [# 16]; Final Pretrial Order dated August 21, 2006, at ¶ 5 “Pending
Motions” [# 17].
Summary judgment may be granted where "the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “The burden of showing that no
Case 1:05-cv-01570-WYD-PAC Document 18 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 3
A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S v. Tingey Trading International, Inc.
Doc. 18
Dockets.Justia.com
2
genuine issue of material fact exists is borne by the moving party.” E.E.O.C. v.
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 2000). When applying
this analysis, the court must “view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Atlantic
Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Martin v. Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120, 1129 (10th Cir. 1999)). “Only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id