No. 24-415
Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. Misonix, Inc.
Relisted (2)
Tags: circuit-court email-interpretation evidence-standard judicial-review non-movant-rights summary-judgment
Latest Conference:
2024-12-13
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the Court should summarily reverse the Second Circuit decision affirming summary judgment against Petitioner.
2. Whether the Second Circuit, after disregarding evidence in the record that favored the non-movant, erred in adopting a "whole record" summary judgment standard that entitles the court to adopt its own disputed interpretation of email correspondence, a standard that is in conflict with the other circuits?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Second Circuit erred in granting summary judgment by disregarding evidence and adopting a disputed interpretation of email correspondence
Docket Entries
2024-12-16
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024.
2024-10-15
Motion (24M25) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record Granted.
2024-09-18
MOTION (24M25) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-09
Motion (24M25) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed.
2024-09-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2024)
2024-07-19
Application (24A47) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until September 9, 2024.
2024-07-12
Application (24A47) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 25, 2024 to September 9, 2024, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Attorneys
Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
Gordon D. Todd — Sidley Austin,LLP, Petitioner