Legal Opinion
Culkin v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided December 6, 2004No. 3:03CV1865(CFD)(TPS)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff, Michael Culkin (“Culkin”), commenced this action against the defendant, Pitney Bowes, Inc. (“Pitney Bowes”), seeking damages arising out of the defendant’s alleged harassment, discrimination, and retaliation during his employment in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C § 2601, et seq., and Connecticut State Law. (Compl.). Pending before the court is the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt.# 40) brought pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Vernon EARLEY and Garey Noe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Arthur Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Marcia R. LIEBERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward v. GANT Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & CrosbyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- Sánchez-Medina v. Unicco Service Co.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2010
- Jackson v. AFSCME Local 196District Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Chamberlain v. Farmington Savings BankDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Brown v. Town of Front Royal, VirginiaDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.