In its responsive pleadings, the supermarket denied liability and also asserted that it did not own or control the parking lot at issue.
In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that discovery was ongoing with respect to the ownership and maintenance of the parking lot at issue.
The court noted that the supermarket Defendant merely alleged in its pleadings and its Motion for Summary Judgment that it did not own or maintain the parking lot. However, the supermarket Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of that allegation.
As such, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based on issues of fact and allowed the case to proceed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.



No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.