joints,” Weaver Cooke was not obligated to raise anything about the expansion joints. (Id.) WSI contends this conclusion was in error.' The court agrees. Weaver Cooke should not have remained silent if it disagreed with WSI’s characterization of its (Weaver Cooke’s) claims in dispute. In support of its summary judgment motion, WSI made express representations as to its work with which Weaver Cooke took, and did not take, issue. It made the representations not only in its brief but also at the hearing on the motion. Weaver Cooke therefore had two opportunities to refute the representations. If WSI was mistaken in its belief about the lack of potential liability for its expansion joint work, as Weaver Cooke contends, then Weaver Cooke was obligated to correct 852, 867 (D. Minn. 2015) (<HOLDING>). For this reason, the bankruptcy court abused
recognizing that where the nonmovant did not respond to the movants statement in its summary judgment memorandum about the lack of damages flowing from its conduct the nonmovant waived any argument that he had incurred damages in connection with the claim holding courts review motion for summary judgment in light most favorable to nonmovant holding that the nonmovant did not controvert the statement of the movants belief and thus the first element of the craddock test was satisfied holding that summary judgment was appropriate when no reasonable factfinder could have found for the nonmovant holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment