Legal Opinion
Weinstock v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 4, 1993No. 92 Civ. 7557 (LAP)PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
PRESKA, District Judge.
Defendant Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (“Cleary”) moves to dismiss the amended complaint on three grounds: (1) the order of another court bars plaintiffs from proceeding on their claims in this action; (2) for reasons of judicial administration, this Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction in deference to concurrent state proceedings; and (3) plaintiffs fail to state a federal claim, and the Court should not exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. For the reasons stated below, Cleary’s motion is granted and the amended…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Tafflin v. LevittSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Avi Nakash, Joe Nakash, and Ralph Nakash v. Georges Marciano, Maurice Marciano, Armand Marciano, Paul MarcianoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Telesco v. Telesco Fuel And Masons' MaterialsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Siemens Industry, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Estee Lauder Companies Inc. v. BatraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- American Alliance Insurance v. Eagle InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Wiggin & Co. v. Ampton Investments, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Edge Inv., LLC v. Dist. of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.