Legal Opinion
Christensen v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 31, 1994No. Civ. 5:92CV00727(AHN)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
NEVAS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs bring this action against Chesebrough-Pond’s Inc. (“Chesebrough”), 1 pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) and § 1132(e)(1). Plaintiffs allege that, as “participants” in Chesebrough’s enhanced severance pay plan (“plan” or “severance plan”), they are eligible to receive such benefits.
Presently pending before the court are Chesebrough’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing 2 and plaintiffs’ renewed motion to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of BellwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Dana Leigh Thompson v. County of Franklin, William A. Hughes, Treasurer of Franklin CountyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bleiler v. Cristwood Contracting Co., Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
- Daughtry v. Birdsong PeanutsDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2001