Legal Opinion
Haamid v. United States Postal Service
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 21, 1990No. Civ. A. 89-0780PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
WALDMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the government’s Motion to Dismiss. The government seeks to have the plaintiff’s complaint against it dismissed for failure to name the proper party or to make proper service, and dismissed as to the other defendants for lack of pendant jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a “Cross-Motion to Amend” her complaint to substitute the United States for the U.S. Postal Service as the proper party defendant.
I. Facts
On February 14, 1987, plaintiff allegedly was a passenger in a vehicle owned by defendant Hannaberr and driven by defendant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Finley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Fannie R. Braxton v. United States of America and Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Employers Insurance Of Wausau v. Crown Cork & Seal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Hattie Paulk v. Department of the Air Force, Chanute Air Force BaseCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Gregory Whale v. United States of America, United States Drug Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau of InvestigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- TM Marketing, Inc. v. Art & Antiques Associates, L.P.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Darmanchev v. RoytshteynDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
- Johnson v. GoldsteinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Hunt v. Department of Air ForceDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 1993