Legal Opinion
Truesdale v. Mountain Prods., Inc.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided November 22, 2017No. Civil Action No. 1:17–cv–557 (CKK)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
24. On or before June 25, 2015, IMP contracted with [Conder] to provide employees to perform work at RFK and provide necessary vetting, training, instruction, supervision, and oversight of *203its employees on the date of the incident.
25. Due to its prior contract with IMP, Mountain was an intended beneficiary of IMP's contract with [Conder].
Mountain Compl. ¶¶ 23-25.
These allegations are not sufficient to establish that Mountain was a third-party beneficiary. "[I]t is well established that, in order to be deemed a third-party beneficiary of a contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chantal Attias v. CareFirst, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- Howard University v. Good Food Services, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Whiting v. AARP & Unitedhealthcare InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Whiting v. AARPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Sidibe v. Traveler's InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holt v. Walsh Grp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Holt v. Walsh GroupDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Jones v. Nvr IncorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020