No. 24-415

Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. Misonix, Inc.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2024-10-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: circuit-court email-interpretation evidence-standard judicial-review non-movant-rights summary-judgment
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2024-12-13 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Second Circuit erred in granting summary judgment by disregarding evidence and adopting a disputed interpretation of email correspondence

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has long held that summary judgment is appropriate only in the absence of genuine issues as to any material fact, viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the opposing party. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 660 (2014) (per curium) (granting summary reversal); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Here, however, the courts below uncritically adopted the movant’s version of the facts and granted summary judgment based on a disputed interpretation of certain email correspondence drafted by non-native English speakers—all while ignoring non-movant’s witness testimony and other evidence that supported an alternative reading of those emails. The questions presented are: 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 nonmovant, 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?

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. ToddSidley Austin,LLP, Petitioner
Gordon D. ToddSidley Austin,LLP, Petitioner