Legal Opinion
Cherepinsky v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided September 8, 2006No. C.A. 206-1269-PMDPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DUFFY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon Defendants’ motion to strike and motion to dismiss certain specified causes of action. For the reasons set forth herein, the court grants Defendants’ motion to strike and grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2006, Plaintiff Robert J. Cherepinsky (“Cherepinsky” or “Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Defendants Sears Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) and Sears Transition Pay Plan (“Plan”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following facts.
First, Plaintiff states that he was…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Mertens v. Hewitt AssociatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. KnudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Edwards v. City of GoldsboroCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Termini v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
- Hendrix v. Resource Real Estate Management, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2016
- Bunker v. CIGNA Health Management, Inc.District Court, D. South Dakota · 2020
- Demastes v. Midwest Diversified Management CorpDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2020
- Williams v. Centerra Group, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2022