Narrative Opinion Summary
The decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is affirmed. David L. Starky, representing himself, appealed the judgment entered on March 10, 2000, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, Moygashel USA. Starky alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, religious discrimination, and retaliation under New Jersey law. On appeal, he contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims, and in denying his request for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing the reasons provided in Starky v. Moygashel USA, Inc. Starky did not appeal the district court's ruling regarding his retaliation and religious discrimination claims, which are therefore considered abandoned.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abandonment of Claims on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Starky's failure to appeal the district court's decision on his retaliation and religious discrimination claims resulted in those claims being considered abandoned.
Reasoning: Starky did not appeal the district court's ruling regarding his retaliation and religious discrimination claims, which are therefore considered abandoned.
Denial of Additional Discovery under Rule 56(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's denial of Starky's request for additional discovery, suggesting that the denial was within the court's discretion and supported by the case circumstances.
Reasoning: On appeal, he contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims, and in denying his request for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, indicating that the district court correctly applied the legal standards for summary judgment.
Reasoning: The decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is affirmed.