The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garnett Thomas Eisele United States District Court
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are three Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant CNH America, LLC d/b/a New Holland Construction (hereinafter referred to as "NHC"), against Plaintiff Capital Equipment, Inc. ("Capital"). Capital has responded to the motions and NHC has filed a reply brief. Following a review of the entire summary judgment record, the Court concludes that Defendant's motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL OVERVIEW
The Court will not discuss in detail the background facts and procedural history of this case. Such is revealed in the voluminous record, which includes several substantive Orders and the transcript from a Daubert hearing, to-wit:
(1) Order of September 27, 2004, denying NHC's motions to dismiss and taking under advisement personal jurisdiction issue as to claims against Plaintiffs Noble and Timberjack. (Docket no. 27);
(2) Order Finding Personal Jurisdiction, dated January 11, 2005. (Docket No. 31);
(3) Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dated January 6, 2006. (Docket No. 73);
(4) Order Regarding Defendant's Daubert Challenge, dated January 9, 2006. (Docket No. 75);
(5) Daubert Hearing held on January 25, 2006. (Transcript of Hearing filed as Docket No. 109).
(6) Order on Discovery Motions dated July 31, 2006. (Docket No. 162).
(7) Order on Capital's Motion to Compel dated September 27, 2006. (Docket No. 197).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only when, in reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, so that the dispute may be decided solely on legal grounds. Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1987); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Supreme Court has ...