Legal Opinion

Woolf v. Mary Kay Inc.

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided October 29, 2001No. Civ.A.3:01CV0668-GPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

FISH, District Judge.

Before the court is the motion of the defendants Mary Kay, Inc. and Sharon Davis (collectively, “Mary Kay”) for reconsideration of that portion of the court’s memorandum order, filed on September 28, 2001 (“September 28 Order”), remand ing the state law claims of the plaintiff Claudine Woolf (“Woolf’) to the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (“191st District Court of Dallas County”). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. 1

I. BACKGROUND

Although the factual and procedural history of this ease is set forth in the September 28…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. SchachtSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Timothy A. McKay by and Through His Guardian and Next Friend, Thomas G. McKay v. Boyd Construction Co., Inc. And Mississippi State Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. LoydCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
  4. Trask v. KasenetzDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1993
  5. Devore v. Transport Technology Corp.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1996

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Zuurbier v. MedStar Health, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  2. Levinson v. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
  3. Farmer v. GonzalezDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API