Legal Opinion

Combs v. Comair

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Decided January 3, 2008No. Civil Action (Master File) No. 5:06-CV-316-KSF; Nos. 5:07CV00312KSF, 5:07CV00015KSF, 5:07CV00300KSF, 5:07CV00126KSF, 5:07CV00317KSF, 5:07CV00319KSF, 5:07CV00320KSF, 5:07 C V00400KSF, 5:07CV00322KSF, 5:07CV00323KSF, 5:06CV00429KSF, 5:07 CV00326KSF, 5:07CV00127KSF. 5:07CV00315KSF, 5:07CV00316KSF, 5:07 C V00318KSF, 5:06CV00292KSF, 5:07CV00321KSF, 5:07CV00124KSF, 5:07CV00318KSF, 5:07C V00324KSF, 5:07CV00269KSF, 5:06C V00385KSFPublished

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motions of Comair, Inc., et al. (“Comair”) [DE # 539] and Bombardier, Inc. (“Bombardier”) [DE #736] pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss claims by various Plain*669tiffs for loss of consortium, pre-impact fear, and hedonic and loss of enjoyment of life damages as a matter of law. Having been fully briefed, these motions are ripe for review.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Comair and Bombardier move to dismiss certain of Plaintiffs’ damage claims on the ground that they are not authorized by…

2Cases cited29 opinions

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. Union Planters Bank, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.