Kmmentor v. Knowledge Mgmt. Prof'l Soc'y Inc
| Decision Date | 13 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 06-2381-EFM. |
| Citation | 712 F.Supp.2d 1222 |
| Parties | KMMENTOR, LLC et al., Plaintiffs,v.KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY, INC. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jonathan D. Frieden, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, PC, Fairfax, VA, Thomas A. Hamill, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiffs.
Rhonda Smiley, Winchester, VA, for Defendants.
“Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification.” 1 This case involves several parties engaged in the knowledge management field, a field that creates and uses data and information to manage knowledge. The proceedings so far have been highly contentious, and the parties have compiled numerous facts but have not simplified the process.
Before the Court in Case No. 06-2381 is KM Mentor's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 87); Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counterclaims (Doc. 90); and Second Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 111). Also before the Court is Defendants Kirsch's, Leitch's, and Hulehan's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 96) and the KMPro parties' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 98).
As described in detail below, the Court grants KM Mentor's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, grants in part and denies in part KM Mentor's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denies KM Mentor's Second Motion to Strike Affidavit. In addition, the Court denies the KMPro parties' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Kirsch's, Leitch's, and Hulehan's Motion for Summary Judgment.
There are three cases that are related. These include Triple-I v. Hudson Associates Consulting, Inc. et al., No. 06-cv-2195-EFM-KMH (the “Triple-I Case”); 2KM Mentor, LLC et al. v. Knowledge Management Professional Society, Inc. et al., No. 06-cv-2381-EFM-KMH (the “KM Mentor Case”); 3 and Hudson Associates Consulting, Inc. et al. v. Eric Weidner, et al., No. 06-cv-2461-EFM-KMH (the “Hudson Case”).4 With respect to the parties, the Court will generally refer to Knowledge Management Professional Society (“KMPro”), Hudson Associates Consulting, Inc. (“Hudson”), Dan Kirsch, John Leitch and Wayne Hulehan as the KMPro parties. KM Mentor, LLC and Douglas Weidner will be collectively referred to as KM Mentor. International Knowledge Management Institute, LLC (“IKMI”), Eric Weidner, Brandon Weidner, and Wendy Johnson Weidner will be collectively referred to as the Weidner parties. Generally, KM Mentor and the Weidner parties are aligned.
The first case, Case No. 06-2195, was filed in the District of Kansas. The second case was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was later transferred to the District of Kansas on September 12, 2006. The third case was filed in the District of Kansas on October 24, 2006. These three cases are consolidated for purposes of discovery because they all involve similar claims and counterclaims regarding certain service marks. The order consolidating the three cases states that pleadings related to dispositive motions should be filed in the specific case.
The Court is now considering numerous dispositive motions. In Case No. 06-2195, there are four pending motions for partial summary judgment. In Case No. 06-2381, there is one pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, three pending motions for partial summary judgment, and a motion to strike an affidavit attached to a summary judgment motion. In all, there are five motions pending in Case No. 06-2381. In Case No. 06-2461, there are seven pending motions for partial summary judgment or motion for judgment on pleadings. In total, the Court is considering sixteen motions related to these three cases.
The required rules for summary judgment motions in the District of Kansas are set forth in D. Kan. Rule 56.1. Under that rule, “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.” 5 D. Kan. Rule 56.1(b) addresses opposing motions for summary judgment. It states:
(b) Opposing Memorandum
(1) A memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall begin with a section that contains a concise statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Each fact in dispute shall be numbered by paragraph, shall refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the opposing party relies, and, if applicable, shall state the number of movant's fact that is disputed.
(2) If the party opposing summary judgment relies on any facts not contained in movant's memorandum, that party shall set forth each additional fact in a separately numbered paragraph, supported by references to the record, in the manner required by subsection (a), above. All material facts set forth in this statement of the nonmoving party shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the reply of the moving party.
There are numerous issues with the KMPro parties' responses.6 First, as noted above, the District of Kansas has specific rules regarding motions for summary judgment. Facts not properly controverted are deemed admitted. In Case No. 06-2381, the KMPro parties do not properly controvert any of the eighty-three facts set forth by KM Mentor as there was no section containing a concise statement of material facts to which they objected. They merely state that “[t]here is ample record evidence to show that the parties controvert every material fact that could make a difference to the result in this litigation.”
In addition, the KMPro parties do not direct the Court to the portion of the record upon which they rely upon to oppose the facts as set forth by KM Mentor. Instead, they direct the Court to numerous documents contained in the two companion cases. Furthermore, the KMPro parties do not even direct the Court to the actual documents but instead direct the Court to their “responses” to certain motions.7
“[I]t is the duty of the parties contesting a motion for summary judgment to direct the court to those places in the record where evidence exists to support their positions.” 8 The Court will not sift through the record in an attempt to find a genuine issue of material fact or locate arguments for the parties.9 It is the party's responsibility to tie the facts to its legal contention.10 “Without a specific reference, ‘we will not search the record in an effort to determine whether there exists dormant evidence which might require submission of the case to a jury.’ ” 11
While the Court is aware that the claims in these three cases are all very similar, the responsibility is on the parties to demonstrate how they overlap or differ. It also is the parties' responsibility to present their arguments and authorities in an understandable fashion. A three page response incorporating seven briefs filed in three different cases is not understandable. If the parties are seeking a ruling on a discreet issue, they cannot incorporate by reference their arguments with regard to other issues and expect the Court to know which facts or arguments apply to their specific issue. While the Court recognizes that there may be evidence somewhere to support the KMPro parties' assertions and denials, it is not directed to it. The record in these three cases is voluminous, and the Court will not search for the KMPro parties' evidence. The Court will deem as admitted all facts not specifically controverted by the record. To the extent that the record does not support KM Mentor's factual contentions, the Court will disregard those facts. If the Court could easily ascertain to which document the KMPro parties directed the Court, the Court will consider that document.
This case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It was then transferred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 12 The parties appear to agree that Virginia law applies to the fraud claim in the KMPro parties' counterclaim. However, with respect to the eleven other claims in the counterclaim and the ten claims in KM Mentor's complaint, neither party specifically addresses choice of law issues.
With respect to the parties' federal claims of trademark and copyright infringement, KM Mentor primarily relies on federal law from across the United States, including some Tenth Circuit law. As to several other claims, KM Mentor relies on the District of Kansas interpretation of federal law. The KMPro parties primarily rely on Tenth Circuit law, with some federal law from across the United States.
With regard to the state law claims, both parties cite to Kansas and Virginia law for the KMPro parties' tortious interference with contract claim and civil conspiracy claim. Both parties bring a breach of contract claim against the other party. The contract has a specific provision that it will be governed by both Maryland and Virginia law.
The Court will consider the case law the parties provided to the Court. With regard to the federal claims, it is presumed to be consistent. The Court, however, will first rely on Tenth Circuit or Fourth Circuit law, to the extent available on a specific issue, and then look to the other federal circuit courts of appeals.13
III. KM Mentor's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Case No. 06-2381 (Doc. 87)A. Standard of Review
Responsive pleadings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. Transam Trucking, Inc.
...(Doc. 476).3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).4 Myers v. Koopman , 738 F.3d 1190, 1193 (10th Cir. 2013) ; KMMentor, LLC v. Knowledge Mgmt. Prof'l Soc., Inc. , 712 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1231 (D. Kan. 2010).5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 569, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).6 Sanders v. M......
-
Rama Operating Co. v. Barker
...between conclusory statements and substantive allegations contained in affidavit); see also KMMentor, LLC v. Knowledge Mgmt. Professional Soc., 712 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1251 (D.Kan.2010) (finding conclusory affidavit insufficient to establish contested fact for summary judgment purposes). Thus, ......
-
Helfrich v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n
...IS SO ORDERED.1 Fed.R.Civ.P.12(c).2 Myers v. Koopman, 738 F.3d 1190, 1193 (10th Cir.2013) ; KMMentor, LLC v. Knowledge Mgmt. Prof'l Soc., Inc., 712 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1231 (D.Kan.2010).3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).4 Sanders v. Mountain......
-
Atlas Biologicals, Inc. v. Kutrubes
...commerce without consent; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion. KMMentor, LLC v. Knowledge Mgmt. Prof'l Soc'y, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1241 (D. Kan. 2010) (citing Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045, 1050-57 (......