Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 14, 2023

Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-11710
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Summary JudgmentContractTort
In one sentence

In Sanmina v. Dialight, Judge Failla granted partial summary judgment on willful misconduct but denied it on fraudulent inducement and accounts receivable.

Who this affects

Sanmina Corporation and Dialight PLC, whose claims were addressed by the partial summary-judgment ruling.

What happened

Sanmina Corporation moved for partial summary judgment against Dialight PLC’s claims for fraudulent inducement and willful misconduct, and on Sanmina’s own breach-of-contract claim concerning certain accounts receivable.

The court granted Sanmina’s motion as to Dialight’s willful misconduct claim. It denied the motion as to Dialight’s fraudulent inducement claim and Sanmina’s accounts receivable claim, so those claims were not resolved by this order.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla also directed the parties to propose redactions to the sealed opinion and stated that a redacted version would be filed publicly. The order was filed in both related cases and terminated the pending motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sanmina Corporation v. Dialight PLC · No. 1:19-cv-11710
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Mar. 14, 2023

Background

The caption lists two related cases involving Sanmina Corporation and Dialight PLC. Sanmina moved for partial summary judgment, which is a request for judgment on particular claims without a trial. The motion concerned three claims: Dialight’s tort claims for fraudulent inducement and willful misconduct, and Sanmina’s breach-of-contract claim concerning certain accounts receivable.

Rulings on the Claims

The court granted Sanmina’s motion as to Dialight’s willful misconduct claim. The court denied Sanmina’s motion as to Dialight’s fraudulent inducement claim and Sanmina’s own accounts receivable claim. The available order does not state the reasons for those rulings; it refers to a separate opinion and order filed under seal.

Redactions and Case Administration

The parties were directed to submit a joint letter proposing redactions to the sealed opinion by April 11, 2023. The court stated that it would then file a redacted version on the public docket after considering the parties’ suggestions. The clerk was directed to file the order in both cases and terminate the pending motions at docket entry 81 in Case No. 19 Civ. 11710 and docket entry 65 in Case No. 19 Civ. 11712. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.