cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-10-03
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19496 ↗

Full Text

1,259 chars

Alliance has demonstrated that it did not represent window screens as safety devices.
Again, while it is not clear that a defective window screen is the sole basis for Plaintiffs’
Consumer Protection Act claim, Plaintiffs did not respond to the summary judgment motion and
thus have failed to meet their burden. As noted above, Plaintiffs had a duty to “respond[] with
specific facts raising a triable issue.” Caldwell, 2025 VT 17, ¶ 7. On summary judgment,
Plaintiffs cannot merely rest on the allegations of their Complaint. Instead, they must come
forward and identify the facts they are relying on to support the allegation that Alliance made
misrepresentations. See id. (where “a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to the party’s case,” summary judgment is “mandated”);
V.R.C.P. 56(c)(2); see also Pharmacists Mut. Ins., 2010 VT 10, ¶ 18 (party’s “failure to oppose
the motion effectively waived the claims”). Because Plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion,
there are no facts in the record to show that Alliance made any representations about the safety
of the premises for children. Accordingly, Alliance is entitled to summary judgment on the
Consumer Protection Act claim. III. Peter Cook.

Other Sections in This Document (29)

Full Text