Legal Opinion
Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 5, 1989No. Civ. 88-1764PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NEALON, District Judge.
Currently before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motions will be denied and plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.
BACKGROUND
The complete factual and procedural history of this case is detailed in this court’s Memorandum and Order of June 9, 1989 and will not be reiterated here. See documents 65 and 66 of record. In its June 9 Order, the court granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ first…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Sturm v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Budd Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Pinole Point Properties, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1984
- Lucas Coal Company v. Interior Board of Mine Operations AppealsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- City of Health, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1993
- Smith v. WeaverSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Reading Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Bayer Corp.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1997
- Glazer v. American Ecology Environmental Services Corp.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.