Legal Opinion
Collins v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 16, 1989No. Civ. A. No. 88-3406PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
AUBREY F. ROBINSON, Jr., Chief Judge.
Ripe for disposition is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Related Case Designation. The complaint in this action was designated as related to Rettig v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., No. 82-0517 (D.D.C.) and Peich v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., No. 82-1131 (D.D.C.) (hereafter referred to jointly as Rettig/Peich), two consolidated class actions in which a settlement agreement was reached. Defendant contends that this case cannot be considered as related to Rettig/Peich because (1) Rettig/Peich are no longer “pending on the merits” as contemplated…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Gene Rettig v. Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Douglas F. Warner v. Donat Rossignol v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
- Ross v. WarnerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Medford v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1988
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stewart v. O'NEILLDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Keepseagle v. GlickmanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- United States v. Volvo Construction Equipment AbDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013