Legal Opinion
Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 12, 1998No. Civ. 97-6207(DRD)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge.
Defendant, Loomis Fargo & Co. (“Loomis Fargo”), moves to dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs John Keeley, Timmie Orange, Ariel Kilpatrick and Charles Werdann for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
The following statement of facts has been compiled from the complaint, which is styled as a class action complaint.
Loomis Fargo, a Delaware corporation, was created in January 1997 as a result of the merger between Wells Fargo Armored…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- John Keeley Timmie Orange Ariel Kilpatrick Charles Werdann, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Loomis Fargo & CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Brown v. Ford Storage & Moving Co.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2010
- Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999