Barthelmes et al v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al
| James Barthelmes and Virginia Barthelmes |
| Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC |
| 3:2013cv30164 |
| September 30, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Springfield Office |
| Hampden |
| Michael A. Ponsor |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 160 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORNADUM AND ORDER entered. For the reasons set forth, the Report and Recommendation - 24 of the Magistrate Judge, upon de novi review, is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Defts' partial motion to dismiss - 7 is ALLOWED with regard to Counts III, IV (as to Virginia), VI, IX and XII. Additionally, the motion is ALLOWED with respect to the portion of Count I which concerns James's severance package. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED with respect to the re mainder of Count I, as well as Counts II, IV (with regards to James) and V. The court notes, as did Judge Neiman, that Counts X, XI and XII, and XIV have already been dismissed. The court also reiterates that Defts' have not sought dismissal of Counts VII and VIII. Finally, since Judge Neiman recommended dismissal of Counts IV and XII and Pltf. did not object to dismissal of those specific counts, they are DISMISSED as well. (Finn, Mary)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
