Legal Opinion
Marshall v. HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 18, 2009No. Civil Action 05-2502 (RWR)PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Sandra Marshall brought employment-related claims against defendants Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. (“Honeywell”), L-3 Communications Government Services, Inc. (“GSI”), and SGT, Inc. (“SGT”). The defendants each move to dismiss Marshall’s claims, arguing that Marshall lacks standing to bring this action because she had filed for bankruptcy and only the bankruptcy trustee would have been the true party in interest with standing to sue. Because Marshall lacks standing to bring the instant action, the motions to dismiss will be…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Edward Haase v. William S. Sessions, Director, F.B.I.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- Coalition for Underground Expansion v. MinetaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003
- Parker v. Wendy's International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- Jeffrey and Jeffrey v. DesmondCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Cornish v. DudasDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Sandra Marshall v. Honeywell Technology SystemsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2016
- Walsh v. HageeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Morton v. SchlotzhauerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- Brookens v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.