Hill
Hill v. Boeing Company
Opinion
Opinion
Otero, J.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Docket Nos. 14, 20]
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Rawlings Mechanical Corporation (“Rawlings”) and The Boeing Company’s (“Boeing”) (collectively, “Defendants”) separate Motions for Summary Judgment, filed on November 16, 2010 and November 22, 2010, respectively. (Docket Nos. 14, 20.) Plaintiff Alexander M. Hill (“Plaintiff’), appearing in propria persona, submitted late Oppositions to the Motions for Summary Judgment on December 13, 2010. (Docket Nos. 24, 29.) Plaintiff also submitted a “Response to Rawlings’ Statement of Uncontroverted Facts” on the same date, which the Court deems as Evidentiary Objections. Rawlings filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition on January 28, 2011. (Docket No. 31.) Rawlings also lodged Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiffs Declaration in Support of His Opposition. (Docket No. 22.) Boeing chose not to file a Reply. The Court found these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearings set for December 20, 2010. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the following reasons, Defen dants’ Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED.