Legal Opinion
Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 26, 2010No. Civil Action 08-0625(JR)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JAMES ROBERTSON, District Judge.
A jury found in favor of plaintiff Mary Kate Breeden on her claim that her former employer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, had illegally retaliated against her for taking Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave. Novartis now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict. 1 The motion will be granted.
The basic facts of this case are described in detail in my memorandum opinion granting in part and denying in part Novartis’ summary judgment motion. See Breeden v. Novartis Pharm.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Creekmore v. Truist BankDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2025
- Wert v. The Pennsylvania State UniversityDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2022