Legal Opinion
Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 6, 2016No. Civil Action No. 2014-0378PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge
On September 2, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and separate Order granting Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See ECF Nos. 74-75. Plaintiffs Janice Murray and Alnett (Tim) Queen now move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend that judgment. They contend that, in part because of new evidence, the Court erred in its prior ruling.
Although the Court concludes that the evidence is neither new nor persuasive, it does agree that one of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. FirestoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
- Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. CrowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ian Scott-Anderman v. Robert MartinezCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2023
- Braithwaite v. FrancoisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- Brathwaite v. FrancoisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- Hudson v. American Federation of Government EmployeesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2022
- Hunter v. Service Employees International UnionDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.