Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 73 – APRIL 17, 1996 FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL PROCEDURE 07-7-8622 Steven M. Kramer v. Legal Media, Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (3 pp.) (1) Where grant of summary judgment is on appeal, court has no jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion to vacate award; (2) Plaintiff’s motion for reargument of post-judgment discovery order is also denied since plaintiff has provided no information about “matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the judge overlooked.” CONTRACTS — FRAUD 11-7-8623 Gourmet Dining Svcs., Inc. v. Shelco Inc., etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (13 pp.) In breach of contract suit also alleging fraud, (1) motion to dismiss fraud count is denied because plaintiff has adequately pled an allowable cause of action, i.e. that defendant schemed to bill plaintiff for employment contributions never made, (2) motion to dismiss racketeering count is denied because plaintiff has adequately pled the cause of action and (3) plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint is granted, since proposed amendments will only clarify the allegations already made and will not prejudice defendants. CORRECTIONS 13-7-8624 Reginald Walker v. Patrick Arvonio, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Although court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss inmate’s complaint for failure to comply with court’s scheduling orders, dismissal is without prejudice in light of the inmate’s contended inability to comply because of his administrative segregation. 13-7-8625 Steven Sanders, etc. v. Essex County Jail, U.S. Dist. Ct. (3 pp.) Court adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge in its entirety and dismisses inmate’s complaint for his consistent failure to comply with court rules despite the efforts of the magistrate judge and the court to extend deadlines in view of inmate’s alleged difficulties. PENSIONS — ERISA 56-7-8626 Anthony Bellezza v. Leonard Bellezza, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (31 pp.) In suit alleging ERISA violations and other misfeasance, (1) motion to dismiss ERISA claims based on statute of limitations is denied since there are material issues of fact concerning when plaintiff obtained actual knowledge of the transactions that are alleged to have violated the ERISA fiduciary obligations and whether defendants concealed transactions, so that the statute of limitations issues cannot be decided at this time, and (2) motion to dismiss a claim regarding one disputed transaction, based on the contention that the claim is moot because plaintiff received full value, is denied since a plaintiff need not demonstrate actual harm to maintain an action under 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(A) and (B) and other sections. Editor’s Note: There were no state court opinions released today for publication.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.