Case Analysis : Low Carbon Processors, Llc V. Kennametal, Inc.

1714 WordsMar 21, 20167 Pages
Caption: Low Carbon Processors, LLC v. Kennametal, Inc., 693 F. Supp. 2d 191 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, alleging claims of breach of confidentiality agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and fraud to which injunctive relief was sought. Defendant moved for summary judgement on all causes. The Facts: Plaintiff is a New York company that sets up recycling programs for manufacturing corporations that generate scrap metal. Defendant is a foreign corporation, which operates such a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania. In 2007, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral confidentiality agreement. Subsequently, the…show more content…
Defendant argues that its acceptance of the third party’s proposal had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s proprietary information and moved for a summary judgement to dismiss all causes. The Issue: Did Defendant meet the standard required to move for a federal summary judgement to dismiss the causes of action alleged? The Holding: Yes, Defendant did meet the standard required to move for a federal summary judgement to dismiss the causes of action. The Reasoning: Two criteria must be met to show summary judgement is warranted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: (1) no “genuine dispute as to any material fact” and (2) “movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.” Evidence of such must be cited to facts in the record. After the initial burden of proof has been met by the movant, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that a genuine issue, which goes beyond circumstantial evidence, exists and that a verdict could be rendered in his favor. All evidence presented is viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In the instant case, the defendant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law on all accounts. As to count one, breach of contract, the plaintiff demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of a valid confidentiality agreement. However, it did not present substantial evidence that
Open Document