MacSweeney et al v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company et al
| Sandra Denobrega MacSweeney, Jean DeFranco, Christine Gordon, Amy Rubin and Ivka Zic |
| ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company |
| 7:2011cv00971 |
| February 14, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Westchester |
| J. Frederick Motz |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
26
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: 19 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Sandra Denobrega MacSweeney, Christine Gordon, Jean DeFranco, Amy Rubin, Ivka Zic and 21 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by ING Life Insurance and A nnuity Company, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint; DENIES defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to the EPA and NYLL claims; and GRANTS defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the NYSHRL claim. Plaintiff's are instructed to file their amended complaint no later than October 17, 2011. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the pending motions (Doc. # 19 and Doc. #21). (Amended Pleadings due by 10/17/2011.) (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/12/2011) (mml)
|
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 New York Southern 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.
