Legal Opinion
Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 4, 1989No. 89 Civ. 2718 (PNL)PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LEVAL, District Judge.
This motion presents a narrow question of first and perhaps also last impression. It concerns the interpretation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the “WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109, during the first 60 days after its effective date. Defendant L.F. Rothschild & Co. Incorporated (“Rothschild”) 1 moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(c) dismissing the complaint on the grounds it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Rothschild moves to strike the claim…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
3Cited by40 opinions
- Carpenters District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., Etc., Stephen J. Plescia, Etc. v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Buford v. H & R Block, Inc.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1996
- Bittinger v. Tecumseh Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- Hewlett v. Premier Salons International, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Cruz v. Robert Abbey, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1991
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.