Hoskins v. BAYER CORP. AND BUS. SERVICES LONG TERM
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are (1) defendant Bayer Corporation Disability Plans’ motion for summary judgment and (2) plaintiff Betty Hoskins’ cross-motion for summary judgment, each brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court hereby rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Betty Hoskins (“Hoskins” or “plaintiff’) was employed by Bayer…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mary M. MAGALLANES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Marjorie Booton v. Lockheed Medical Benefit PlanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Ervin B. Madden v. Itt Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees Federal Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Walker v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Burke v. Pitney Bowes Inc. Long Term Disability PlanDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- (PS) Clay v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3District Court, E.D. California · 2019
- Gordon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Raphaely v. Gartner Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2022