Legal Opinion
Pearson v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided March 17, 2004No. Civil No. 01-1202-ASPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1201OPINION AND ORDER
ASHMANSKAS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Defendants Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. (“Provident”) and UnumProvident Corporation (“Unum”)(collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss Unum as an improperly named defendant in this action filed by plaintiff Neal A. Pearson (“Plaintiff’). Additionally, Defendants move to dismiss all but one of the claims asserted against them in the Second Amended Complaint filed with the court on June 20, 2003 (the “Complaint”). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state claims for: 1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which is…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States Department of Treasury v. FabeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gibson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Humana Inc. v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2014
- Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013
- Bracken v. USAA General Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2019
- Doering v. National Health Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
- Gierke v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2019