Serembus v. Comfort Lines, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ON MOTION TO FREEZE ASSETS
MORAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and now moves the court to freeze the assets of defendant 1735 Diversey, Inc. (“Diversey”) during its pendency, pursuant to Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff argues that attachment is necessary because Diversey, as the alleged alter ego of now defunct Comfort Lines, Inc. (“Comfort Lines”) is liable for benefit contributions that Comfort Lines failed to pay, and freezing Diversey’s assets will preserve the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The Chicago Florsheim Shoe Store Company v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Morgan, Harris & Scott, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- In The Matter Of Bowen Transports, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1977
- Lechman v. Ashkenazy Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- State Bank of Piper City v. A-Way, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vukadinovich v. PosnerDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2023