Quarles v. General Motors Corp. (Motors Holding Div.), No. 905
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before KAUFMAN, MESKILL and NEWMAN; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 758 F.2d 839 |
| Parties | James O. QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (MOTORS HOLDING DIVISION), Defendant-Appellee. ocket 84-7975. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 905 |
Page 839
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (MOTORS HOLDING DIVISION),
Defendant-Appellee.
Second Circuit.
Decided March 27, 1985.
David Rothenberg, Rochester, (Geiger & Rothenberg, Rochester, N.Y., Alexander Geiger, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Anthony R. Palermo, Rochester, N.Y., (Harter, Secrest & Emery, Rochester, N.Y., Teresa D. Johnson, Charles E. Fairfax, III, Rochester, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Until May 22, 1984, James O. Quarles was President and a Director of Jim-Sandy Chevrolet, Inc., an automobile dealership in
Page 840
upstate New York. On that date, General Motors removed him from his positions, suspecting that he was involved in a scheme to defraud the dealership by receiving kickbacks from its advertising agency, and for his failure to cooperate in the maintenance of a lawsuit to recover funds improperly paid to the agency. Quarles then commenced this action in the district court, alleging that General Motors in fact had terminated him on the basis of his race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 (1982), and that the termination was in bad faith, in violation of the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1222 (1982).Before it had served an answer, General Motors moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, for summary judgment on both counts. Lengthy affidavits and numerous exhibits were submitted by the parties. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, Judge Telesca granted defendant-appellee's motion, and directed that the claims be dismissed. See 597 F.Supp. 1037 (W.D.N.Y.1984).
Although the record makes clear that many factual issues surrounding Quarles's termination remain unsettled, we do not believe that any such issues are material within the meaning of Rule 56. See United States v. One Tintoretto Painting, 691 F.2d 603 (2d Cir.1982). And it must be remembered that the mere existence of factual issues--where those issues are not material to the claims before the court--will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
Once a moving party has made a showing that no material issues of fact are in dispute, mere conjecture or speculation by the party resisting summary judgment does not provide a basis upon which to deny the motion. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klein v. Torrey Point Grp., LLC, 12 Civ. 1190(KPF).
...425]motion for summary judgment,” Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985)). Furthermore, “[m]ere conclusory allegations or denials cannot by themselves create a genuine issue of material fact where ......
-
Cotz v. Mastroeni, 05 Civ. 2991(WCC).
...by the party resisting summary judgment does not provide a basis upon which to deny the motion.") (quoting Quarles v. Gen. Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985)). Accordingly, this claim against Weidel must be Plaintiffs second cause of action against Weidel alleges that he violated......
-
Makinen v. City of N.Y., 1:11–cv–07535 (ALC)(GWG).
...enough to raise genuine issues of fact. Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1986) (citing Quarles v. Gen. Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam)). Finally, “[o]n cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must consider each motion independently of the......
-
In re Houbigant, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 93 B 45767 (JLG).
...not material to the claims before the court — will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). In assessing the merits of a summary judgment motion, the court must view the record in the light most favo......
-
Healey v. Thompson, No. 3:98CV418(DJS).
...before the court — will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Quarles v. General Motors Corp. (Motors Holding Div.), 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d B. HHABN NOTICES Plaintiffs contend that the both the Medicare statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that th......
-
Olle v. Columbia University, No. 02 Civ. 8552(RWS).
...will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Quarles v. Gen. Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985) ("[T]he mere existence of factual issues — where those issues are not material to the claims before the court — will not s......
-
Mill Creek Group, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., No. 3:95 CV 1498 (TPS).
...claims before the court — will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Quarles v. General Motors Corp. (Motors Holding Div.), 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d V. THE TORT CLAIMS Plaintiff's tort claims should be analyzed with respect to the Federal Tort Claims Act. They also must be consi......
-
Albert v. Carovano, No. 928
...warning notice to leave the building, and did not discipline any students who heeded that warning. See Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985) ("[I]t is important to note that Quarles was terminated along with his partner, who is a white man. In this setting, Quarle......