Summary
The court denied without prejudice the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal of wrongful-death and survival claims against The Laminate Company. Applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the court found a factual dispute concerning whether The Laminate Company was the same entity as Laminate Co., Inc., the employer identified in a workers’ compensation settlement. The court also declined to consider a release argument raised for the first time in the defendants’ reply brief.
Holdings
- Judgment on the pleadings could not be granted because a material factual dispute existed concerning whether The Laminate Company and Laminate Co., Inc. were the same entity or otherwise related, and that issue could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- The court would not consider defendants' argument that the settlement agreement released The Laminate Company because the argument was raised for the first time in the reply brief and deprived plaintiff of an opportunity to respond.
Questions Presented
- Whether the workers' compensation settlement and exclusivity defense established, on the pleadings, that The Laminate Company was the same entity as Laminate Co., Inc. and therefore barred the claims against The Laminate Company.
- Whether defendants' argument that the workers' compensation settlement released The Laminate Company could be considered when raised for the first time in a reply brief.
Disposition
denied
Cases Cited (5)
- Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-91 (3d Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Venetec Int'l, Inc. v. Nexus Med., LLC, 541 F. Supp. 2d 612, 617 (D. Del. 2008)(followed)
- Bedoya v. Am. Eagle Express, Inc., 914 F.3d 812, 816 n.2 (3d Cir. 2019)(followed)
- In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 67 F.4th 118, 135 (3d Cir. 2023)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…