Legal Opinion
Seafarers Welfare Plan v. Philip Morris
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided July 13, 1998No. Civil Action MJG-97-2127PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it the motions entitled “Certain Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint” and “Certain Defendants’ Alternative Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Necessary Parties.” These motions have been adopted by all Defendants. 1 The Court also has before it the materials submitted by the parties relating to the motions. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
As discussed herein, the Court concludes that the motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be granted. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Falise v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2000
- In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Texas Carpenters Health Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1998
- Iron Workers Local Union No.17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.