Legal Opinion
Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 28, 1998No. 97 CIV. 4550(SAS), 97 CIV. 4676, 97 CIV. 7346, 97 CIV. 8462 and 97 CIV. 9395 through 97 CIV. 9402PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
On March 25, 1998,1 denied, substantial portions of defendants’ motion to dismiss these complaints for failure to state a claim. Defendants now seek certification for interlocutory review of that order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Certification is appropriate when an order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and “immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation];.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1994). Defendants raise three issues that they…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rita Gottesman v. General Motors Corporation and E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- City and County of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1997
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. Philip Morris Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1998
- Able v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1994
3Cited by5 opinions
- Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Laborers Local 17 Health And Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Phillip Morris, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998
- Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999