Tannenbaum v. Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BUA, District Judge.
Before the Court is the defendant Envirodyne’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
I. FACTS
The plaintiff is an engineer. In September 1975 he entered into an employment contract with Westenhoff & Novick, Inc. The defendant Envirodyne is successor to Westenhoff & Novick. The plaintiff was hired to serve as Project Manager for the design and construction of a certain project in the Republic of El Salvador for a period of 18 months beginning' in July 1975. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ray B. Woodbury v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- Charles H. Blanchard, D/B/A Blanchard Construction Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Charles H. Blanchard, D/B/A Blanchard Construction Co. v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965
- United States v. WelbornDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1980
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lundstrum v. LyngCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Lundstrum v. LyngCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Coffey v. United States Ex Rel. Commodity Credit Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1986
- Karl, Robert v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2022