Legal Opinion
Untalasco v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided April 18, 2017No. Civil Action No. 2016-0672PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
More than one year after the applicable three-year statute of limitations period expired, pro se Plaintiff Eduardo Untalasco (“Untalasco”) filed a claim in this Court against Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. On March 31, 2017, this Court issued an order that GRANTED Lockheed’s Motion to Dismiss Untalasco’s complaint and DISMISSED his action. (See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) This Memorandum Opinion…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Braun v. U.S. Dep't of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Kubicki ex rel. Kubicki v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Kerr v. U.S. Dep't of StateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Alao v. District of Columbia Government Department of HealthDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2025
- Barot v. Aldon ManagementDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.