Gutierrez-Morales v. Planck
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Joseph M. Hood, Senior U.S. District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint. [DE 53]. Plaintiffs have filed a response [DE 55] and Defendants have replied in further support of their motion [DE 57], thus, Defendants’ motion is ripe for review. Having reviewed the motion, response, and reply, and being otherwise adequately advised, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for the reasons set forth below.
I. Background
On May 28, 2015, Plaintiffs, who consist of nine migrant farm workers from Mexico, filed suit against Defendants,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- American Zurich Insurance v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- General Electric Company v. Robert Irvin and Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Nova Products, Inc. v. Kisma Video, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Dishong v. Peabody Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2003
- Baker v. MoorsDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Keener v. Dollar General CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2021
- Lindsey v. Dexterous Mold and Tool, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2022
- Petty v. Bluegrass Cellular, Inc.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2021