Legal Opinion
Fried v. Sungard Recovery Services, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 26, 1995No. 95-CV-0878PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOYNER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Sigmund Fried and Sam Wurst bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated. Fried and Wurst allege that they and the other mem bers of the purported class were exposed to asbestos during the course of renovations that Defendants performed at 401 North Broad Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendants are Sungard Recovery Services (SRS), Sungard Data Systems (SDS), two officers of SRS, James Dibrino and Michael Mulholland, and a construction company hired by SRS and SDS, Intech Construction.
The Second Amended Complaint…
2Cases cited42 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
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- A-Valey Engineers, Inc. v. Board of Chosen FreeholdersDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Idaho Sporting Congress v. Computrol, Inc.District Court, D. Idaho · 1996
- Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Atwell v. KW Plastics Recycling DivisionDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2001
- City of Biddeford v. Maine Energy Recovery Co., LPDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.