Legal Opinion
Kleehammer v. Monroe County
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided September 8, 2010No. 6:09-cr-06177PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORRECTED DECISION & ORDER
SIRAGUSA, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This employment sex discrimination case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 9) for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). For the reasons stated below, the application is granted in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Since the motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, the Court must presume that the allegations in the complaint are true and resolve all doubts and inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 173 (2d…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of RochesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Banks v. AnnucciDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2014
- Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of RochesterDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2010
- Matusick v. Erie County Water AuthorityDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2011
- Pearce v. Estate of LongoDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.