Kun v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.
I
INTRODUCTION
The defendant, the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, has moved to dismiss all of the plaintiff’s Title VII claims on the ground that they are barred by the statute of limitations. It also has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII and his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Baldwin County Welcome Center v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Rita J. Minnette v. Time WarnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Ignatius G. ANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
- Vicki H. Brown v. Hartshorne Public School District 1, Janie Trueblood Lorraine Hollis Jack Holloway Tommy McCullar Dr. Roy HoneywellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Duggins v. Steak 'N Shake, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Nyunt v. TomlinsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Olle v. Columbia UniversityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Sisay v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Dixit v. City of New York Department of General ServicesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.