Legal Opinion

RUSSELLO v. STIHL INCORPORATED

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided August 28, 2020No. 3:20-cv-05716Unknown

1Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHAEL RUSSELLO, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 20-5716 v. OPINION STIHL INCORPORATED a/k/a STIHL, INC. et al., Defendants. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Remand and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff Michael Russello (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 7.) Defendant STIHL Incorporated (“STIHL”) opposes the Motion. (ECF No. 9.) The Court has decided the Motion based on the written submissions of the parties and without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. James F. Boyer and Mary R. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corporation, Kenneth Baldwin and Keith A. Kaiser. Appeal of James F. Boyer and Mary R. BoyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  3. A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  4. Stephens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2011
  5. Calero v. Unisys Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2003

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API