Legal Opinion
Canfield v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 25, 1988No. 455-87CPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*688ORDER
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending before the court are: plaintiffs Notice of Filing of Employees’ Consent To Become Party Plaintiffs; defendant’s Motion To Require Plaintiffs To Conform Pleadings (Rule 20); defendant’s Opposition to Notice of Filing Consent; and plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave To Amend Their Complaint. For the reasons set out herein, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is denied as moot; defendant’s motion to require conformance with RUSCC 20 is denied as moot; and the court waives, for all individuals with notices of consent currently filed, the prohibition in RUSCC 20 and 21…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Schacht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- The United States v. Lester CookCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Arrington v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- Bartels v. Sperti, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Delpin Aponte v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Tumminello v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1988