
    GLIDEPATH HOLDING B.V., Jeimon Holdings N.V., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. SPHERION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
    Nos. 10-1668-cv(L), 10-1817-cv(XAP).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 6, 2011.
    Eugene R. Licker (Martin R. Pollner, Michael B. Shortnacy, on the brief), Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Bruce E. Fader (Mara Lainie Taylor, Jennifer L. Jones, on the brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees GlidePath Holding B.V. and Jeimon Holdings N.V. (collectively, “GlidePath”) and Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant Spherion Corporation both appeal from a March 30, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Spherion on all of GlidePath’s claims and in favor of GlidePath on all of Spherion’s counterclaims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

This Court “review[s] a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lemer, 416 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir.2005). “We will affirm the judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  