Legal Opinion
Marcus v. AT & T CORP.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 21, 1996No. 95 Civ. 9765 (MBM), 96 Civ. 0088 (MBM)PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MUKASEY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions are subscribers to AT & T’s residential long-distance telephone services who allege that AT & T fraudulently conceals its billing prac tices. Plaintiffs in Marcus v. AT & T, 95 Civ. 9765, initially sued in New York State Supreme Court and AT & T removed that action here. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Plaintiffs move to remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs in Moss v. AT & T, 96 Civ. 0088, initiated their action here. Defendant moves to dismiss both complaints for failure to state a claim upon…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Day v. AT & T CORP.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Harriet Alicke v. MCI Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. AlexanderMississippi Supreme Court · 2001
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.