United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.
This case is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 24) and accompanying Memorandum (Doc. # 25) filed by Defendant Quicken Loans, Inc. on November 21, 2014. Also before the court are Plaintiffs Casey and Stephanie Ott's Response in Opposition (Doc. # 33) and Defendant's Reply thereto (Doc. # 34).
The Plaintiffs' original Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Autauga County, Alabama in September of 2012. The Complaint alleges state law claims for breach of contract; fraudulent misrepresentation; promissory fraud; fraudulent suppression, negligent and wanton conduct; negligent and wanton hiring, supervision, and training; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and slander of credit. All of the claims stem from Plaintiffs' dealings with Defendant after they applied for a loan to refinance their home mortgage and began the process of closing on the loan.
The Defendant removed the case to this court based on diversity jurisdiction in June of 2013, and the Plaintiffs did not file a motion to remand. The court finds that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.
For the reasons to be discussed, the Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, " relying on submissions "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Both the party "asserting that a fact cannot be, " and a party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, must support their assertions by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, " or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c)(1)(A)-(B). Acceptable materials under Rule 56(c)(1)(A) include "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials."
To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). On the other hand, the evidence of the nonmovant must be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
The submissions of the parties establish the following facts, construed in a light most ...