Legal Opinion
Tumminello v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 25, 1988No. 463-87CPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending before the court in this action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216 (1982 & Supp. IIII 1985), is Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss or, In the Alternative, To Strike Certain Parties/Request for Imposition of Sanctions, filed November 27, 1987. The motion is based on plaintiffs’ asserted failure to follow the requirements of RUSCC 11, 20, and 21 in the filing of the complaint, as amended, and the written consents of certain employees. In relevant part, RUSCC 20 and 21 prevent joinder of parties to an ongoing multiple-party…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- James H. McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Company, International Brotherhood of Electricalworkers, Local 605 Electrical WorkersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Walling v. General Industries Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Burgett v. Cudahy CompanyDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1973
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Hill v. R+ L CARRIERS, INC.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Cannon v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Canfield v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1988
- Vinole v. Countrywide HomeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009