Legal Opinion
Posner v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided May 19, 1989No. 87 CV 4067PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
In this action based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Defendant also makes the now obligatory application for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
FACTS
1. The Amended Complaint
Assuming all allegations in the amended complaint are true, the facts are as follows. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs, Frances and Sari Posner, are New York citizens and defendant, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (“3M”) is a Minnesota…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Kenford Co. v. County of ErieNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Nordic Bank PLC v. Trend Group, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Martin Roofing, Inc. v. GoldsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Stratton Group, Ltd. v. SprayregenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Berman v. SUGO LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Eaves v. Designs for Finance, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Litton Industries, Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn LoebDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- R.H. Damon & Co. v. Softkey Software Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.