Legal Opinion
Toms v. Pizzo
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided April 9, 1998No. 6:97-cv-06420PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
LARIMER, Chief Judge.
Jerry Toms, pro se, asserts a variety of claims against defendants arising out of his relationship as an independent contractor with Kodak. Three motions are pending before me: defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint; and plaintiffs motion ,to disqualify the defendants’ attorney. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants’ motion is granted and both of the plaintiffs motions are denied.
BACKGROUND
The facts, as alleged in Toms’ complaint, appear to be as follows. In 1994 Toms was retained by Kodak, as an independent…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dominick Annulli v. Ananda K. PanikkarCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Annulli v. PanikkarCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- All World Professional Travel Services, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Westways World Travel v. AMR Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2001
- O'Diah v. ArtusDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.