Legal Opinion
Hardy v. Adam Rose Retirement Plan
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 16, 2013No. 11-CV-4303 (CS)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SEIBEL, District Judge.
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 19), and Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 27). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts relevant to the disposition of the instant Motions, which are essentially not in dispute, are set forth below.
Plaintiff Thomas Hardy was employed by Defendant Adam Rose at Rose’s home, known as “AP Farm,” from 1998 until 2006. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 1; Ds’ 56.1 ¶ 1.)1 In or *410around 2003, Plaintiff was promoted to the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Wickard v. FilburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer PlanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- In re Avaya Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Hardy v. Adam Rose Retirement PlanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer PlanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Pasciutti v. LiquidPiston, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.