Legal Opinion
Cherepinsky v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided December 18, 2006No. C.A. 2:06-1269-PMDPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DUFFY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss certain specified causes of action. For the reasons set forth herein, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2006, Plaintiff Robert J. Cherepinksy (“Cherepinsky” or “Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Defendants Sears Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) and Sears Transition Pay Plan (“Plan”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following facts.
First, Plaintiff states that he was employed by Defendant Sears from 1969 to 1984, and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Edwards v. City of GoldsboroCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Walter Gordon v. William D. Leeke, Commissioner Joe Martin, Warden, Wayne Stephen Young v. George H. Collins, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1978
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Johnson v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICADistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2009