On February 24, 2010, this court ruled on, among other things, a series of summary judgment motions filed by the plaintiffs, defendants, and third-party defendant. (See Dkt. No. 147.)*fn1 Third-party defendant, Polsinello Fuels, Inc., subsequently filed a letter on March 1, notifying the court of its failure to address the portion of Polsinello's motion for summary judgment concerning US Xpress's claim that Polsinello failed to operate, inspect, maintain, and repair its tractor-trailer in accordance with the applicable federal and New York State laws and regulations. (See Dkt. No. 150.) Upon review of Polsinello's original motion, US Xpress's response papers, Polsinello's reply papers, and the underlying record, it appears that there is no evidence supporting such a claim and that US Xpress has implicitly conceded and abandoned the claim. (See Def. Resp. Mem. of Law at 14-16, Dkt. No. 131:3; see also Polsinello Reply Mem. of Law at 1-2 & n.2, Dkt. No. 136:1.) In addition, US Xpress has offered no response to Polsinello's letter. Accordingly, the court grants Polsinello's summary judgment motion regarding US Xpress's claim that Polsinello failed to properly operate, inspect, maintain, and repair its tractor-trailer.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Polsinello's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 111) is GRANTED insofar as US Xpress's claim for Polsinello's failure to operate, inspect, maintain, and repair its tractor-trailer in accordance with federal and state law and regulations is DISMISSED; and it is further