Quarles v. General Motors Corp. (Motors Holding Div.)
| Decision Date | 27 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 905,905 |
| Citation | 758 F.2d 839 |
| Parties | James O. QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (MOTORS HOLDING DIVISION), Defendant-Appellee. ocket 84-7975. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
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.
Until May 22, 1984, James O. Quarles was President and a Director of Jim-Sandy Chevrolet, Inc., an automobile dealership in 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 Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97 (2d Cir.1981)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Houbigant, Inc.
...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......
-
AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
...overcome a motion for summary judgment," Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. , 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Quarles v. Gen. 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 materia......
-
In re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
...Color Card, Inc., 703 F.Supp. 289, 300 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd without opinion, 880 F.2d 1320 (2d Cir.1989); see also Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985); Haskell v. Kaman Corp., 743 F.2d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 1984)) ("The defendant is not obligated to show justifiable ca......
-
New York State Dept. of Social Services v. Bowen
...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, 340 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). While the movant faces a difficult burden to succeed, motions for summary judgment, properly employed, perm......