Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Oklahoma Digital Abstract, LLC v. Imersion Global Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

December 19, 2019

OKLAHOMA DIGITAL ABSTRACT, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
IMERSION GLOBAL INCORPORATED, Defendant,

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE C. KERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Imersion Global Incorporated (“Imersion”). Doc. 40. Plaintiff Oklahoma Digital Abstract, LLC (“ODA”) opposes the motion. Doc. 47.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The movant bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 449 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2006). The Court resolves all factual disputes and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. However, the party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not “rest on mere allegations” in its complaint but must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must also make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of those elements essential to that party's case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-33 (1986).

         A movant that “will not bear the burden of persuasion at trial need not negate the nonmovant' claim, “but may “simply . . . point[] out to the court a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant's claim.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). If the movant makes this prima facie showing, “the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts' that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013 (1992)). “In a response to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot rest on ignorance of facts, on speculation, or on suspicion and may not escape summary judgment in the mere hope that something will turn up at trial. The mere possibility that a factual dispute may exit, without more, is not sufficient to overcome convincing presentation by the moving party.” Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted).

         II. Material Facts

         Imersion was founded in 2010 by Anil K. Adoni (“Adoni”) to provide services in the title industry. Doc. 40, Ex. 1, Adoni Dep. at 15:5-6, 16:5-8. A title plant is a depository of all of the land documents of a particular county indexed by the fields set out by the client to search them and find them. Id. at 24:7-11. As part of the indexing process, Imersion utilizes a team of employees located in India to review document records and create an electronic index of the applicable fields. Id. at 21:5-11; 30:17-24. Imersion has previously indexed documents for more than 60 title plants in Texas and New Mexico, and has assisted in indexing documents for title plants in Arkansas, Michigan and Belize. Id. at 21:5-11; 30:17-24.

         On or about March 25, 2014, ODA and Imersion entered into contracts for the indexing of abstract plants in Wagoner County and Rogers County, Oklahoma. Id., Ex. 2, Junker Dep. at 39:17-41:2 and Exs. 2 and 3 thereto. At Imersion's suggestion, ODA entered into a separate contract with CourthouseDirect.com, Inc. (“CourthouseDirect”) for use of that company's software platform to house the indexes Imersion created. Id., Ex. 2, Junker Dep. at 86:12-14; Ex. 1, Adoni Dep. at 50:25-51:7.

         The two Imersion contracts described the “scope of the project” as follows:

1. Scanning all the documents that are not already scanned by the County in the County and District Clerk's office.
2. Acquire all the data that is already scanned in both the offices.
3. Convert all images if required and then staple all the images as per the document number of the scanned and the acquired (scanned) images from the County
4. Index all the documents as per the indexing rules for the scanned images
5. Index all the gaps that the County missed indexing (if any)
6. Give an estimate for day forward indexing to keep them current to one week[1]
7. Give hosting solutions.

Doc. 73, Exs. 2, 3. The total cost for imaging Wagoner County documents was estimated to be $285, 506.67. Id., Ex. 2. The total cost for imaging Rogers County documents was estimated to be $343, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.