Plaintiff alleged she was intentionally trapped on Wingert Grebing’s clients’ property and was subjected to national origin-based discrimination.  Wingert Grebing filed a Motion for Summary Judgment demonstrating Plaintiff could not establish she had been discriminated against and could not establish that Wingert Grebing’s clients had falsely imprisoned her. After reviewing all papers and hearing extensive oral argument, the Court granted Wingert Grebing’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding there were no triable issues of fact and Wingert Grebing’s clients were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.