 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fine v. Schwinn Cycling Fitness12/26/2000
After being injured in a bicycle accident, appellant Andrew Fine sued the bicycle dealer and respondent Schwinn Cycling & Fitness, the bicycle manufacturer's successor. The dealer settled with a Pierringer release. The district court denied Fine's motion to compel discovery and granted Schwinn Cycling's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Fine argues that (1) the district court improperly denied his motion to compel discovery and his motion for attorney fees; (2) had discovery been ordered he would have obtained information showing there was a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of successor liability; and (3) the district court erred in determining there was no successor liability. We affirm.
FACTS
In 1991, Fine purchased a bicycle that was manufactured by Schwinn Bicycle Company (Schwinn I). In 1992, Schwinn I filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. In January, 1993, the bankruptcy court approved an asset purchase agreement, in which Schwinn I sold substantially all of its assets to Bicycle and Fitness Limited Partnership (Bicycle and Fitness) as assignee of the Zell/Chilmark Fund L.P. The asset purchase was consummated by payment of over $40 million in cash and did not include any corporate stock transfer. The bankruptcy court found this price to be fair, reasonable, and the highest price offered for Schwinn I's assets.
The asset purchase agreement expressly precluded any liability to the buyer resulting from sales by the seller. In addition, Schwinn I explicitly retained liabilities for claims involving tort, product liability, and breach of contract or breach of warranty for injuries resulting from defective products designed, manufactured, and sold by Schwinn I.
In June 1993, Bicycle and Fitness formed a new corporation, Schwinn Cycling & Fitness, Inc. (Schwinn II). Schwinn II continues to use the trade name used by Schwinn I. In June 1996, Fine allegedly fell and was injured when his bicycle's front fork broke while he was riding it. There is no evidence that Schwinn II manufactured, serviced, or repaired the bicycle or that Fine was the victim of any fraud by Schwinn I or Schwinn II.
Schwinn II submitted an affidavit of Debra J. Brandwein, general counsel for the corporation. In it, she asserted that Schwinn II did not design, manufacture, or sell the allegedly defective bicycle. Fine presented no evidence to the contrary.
DECISION
1. On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions: (1)áwhether any genuine issues of material fact exist and (2) whether the district court erred in applying the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). A motion for summary judgment is granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03). On appeal, we "must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Id. (citation omitted).
The district court has wide discretion to issue discovery orders and, absent clear abuse of that discretion, its discovery order will not be disturbed. Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, 454 N.W.2d 916, 921 (Minn. 1990). However, summary judgment should not be granted when an opposing party has been unable to complete relevant discovery through no fault of its own. Rice v. Perl, 320 N.W.2d 407, 412-13 (Minn. 1982).
Fine argues that further discovery needed to be condu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|