Legal Opinion
Montesano v. Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee Plan
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 22, 2000No. 399CV1197(AHN)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
NEVAS, District Judge.
The plaintiffs are former and current supplemental contract workers who perform services for the defendant, Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”) through third-party leasing agencies. They bring this ERISA action on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals throughout the United States to, inter alia, recover benefits allegedly due them under Xerox’s employee benefit plans.
Now pending before the court is Xerox’s Rule 12(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion for judgment on the pleadings. Also pending is a motion to amend the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Varity Corp. v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Edes v. Verizon Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- Schultz v. StonerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Frommert v. ConkrightDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2004
- Thomas v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Edes v. Verizon Communications, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.