Sensormatic Security Corporation v. Sensormatic Electronics Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting a “plaintiff may not amend its complaint through arguments” in an opposition to a summary judgment motion
• “Characterizing documents as ‘confidential’ without any description of . . . why that information should be protected does not satisfy the ‘specific factual allegations’ that Local Rule 105.11 requires.”
• finding defendant could not constructively amended its unjust enrichment counterclaim on a motion for summary judgment by adding allegations that it overpaid plaintiff for escrow payments and source tag labels
• “A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.”
• A “plaintiff may not amend its complaint through arguments at the summary judgment stage.”
• “The elements of tortious interference with contract under Maryland law are: (1) existence of a contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) defendant’s intentional interference with that contract; (4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).