Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Task Management Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 9, 2018


          RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO Appearing pro se

          MICHAEL RATO, BERNARD E. JACQUES (admitted pro hac vice)

          JONATHAN D. WETCHLER (admitted pro hac vice)

          ALIZA R. KARETNICK (admitted pro hac vice)

          TREVOR HARUO TANIGUCHI On behalf of Defendants Campbell Soup Company, Denise Morrison, Carlos Barroso, Scott Keller, Jonathan Wetchler, and Duane Morris

          AMBER M. SPATARO On behalf of Defendant Cary Hayes


          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This Opinion and its accompanying Order address two separate but largely overlapping matters now pending before this Court: Docket No. 17-7506 and Docket No. 18-298.[1] These cases arise from Plaintiff's overriding allegation that he lost his job due to retaliation for filing various complaints. Plaintiff brings claims under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), as well as other statutory and common law claims. Between both dockets, before the Court are two motions for preliminary injunction, several motions to dismiss, several motions to strike, a motion to set aside entry of default, and a motion to compel defendants to file an answer.[2]

         For the reasons that follow, the Court will allow Plaintiff's Title VII and NJLAD claims to proceed in part against Task Management. The Court will otherwise dismiss Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff is permitted to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint to attempt to cure any deficiencies the Court has identified in this Opinion.

         I. Background

         A. Plaintiff's Factual Allegations

         The Court takes its facts from Plaintiff's January 8, 2018 Complaint in the 18-298 action.[3] On August 1, 2017, Linda Harrison, a Senior Technical Recruiter at Task Management, [4]contacted Plaintiff to inquire whether Plaintiff had the skills to take on a project with Task Management's client, Campbell Soup.

         Plaintiff showed interest and Harrison submitted Plaintiff's resume to Campbell Soup. Plaintiff was then interviewed by Campbell Soup Senior Director Scott Keller. Following the interview, Plaintiff was informed by Harrison that he was selected for a contract role at Campbell Soup. On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff entered into an agreement on behalf of the Kamdem Group, his sole proprietor business, with Task Management for a role as a consultant at Campbell Soup in its Flavor Technology Unit (the “Task Management Agreement”).[5] It appears the agreement was executed by Stephan Mohan, a director at Task Management. Under the agreement, termination would occur upon the earlier of the following: (1) completion of the project or (2) at the election of Plaintiff, Task Management, or Campbell Soup.[6]

         Plaintiff began working with Campbell Soup on August 21, 2017 at its Camden location. Plaintiff was assigned three projects with Campbell Soup under the supervision of Keller. Campbell Soup issued a work Purchase Order, approved and signed by Carlos Barroso, [7] that showed that Campbell Soup disbursed money to Task Management for every hour of work performed by Plaintiff. Task Management issued a biweekly pay schedule for Plaintiff.

         Approximately eleven days after he started work, on September 1, 2017, Plaintiff was informed by Harrison that Campbell Soup had decided to suspend the projects Plaintiff had been working on due to financial hardship and that Plaintiff was not to return to work, nor contact Keller or any other Campbell Soup employees. Plaintiff alleges that after this call, he remembered that he had been contacted earlier that day by a recruiter who was looking to find someone to fill a role at Campbell Soup. Upon further conversations with the recruiter, it became Plaintiff's understanding that this open role was identical to the one Plaintiff was informed by Harrison was suspended.

         Plaintiff pleads that around September 1, 2017, Campbell Soup began searching for a person with Plaintiff's qualifications. Plaintiff was contacted by multiple recruiters regarding Campbell Soup's search. Plaintiff alleges two recruiters contacted Cary Hayes, a Campbell Soup employee, about Plaintiff and that Hayes told them to stop speaking and wasting their time with Plaintiff. Plaintiff pleads the job listing was eventually removed from public viewing and that the process to find Plaintiff's replacement was taken up by a paid executive search firm.

         On September 8, 2017, following what appears to be several unanswered e-mails to Harrison regarding his termination and potential openings at Campbell Soup, Plaintiff inquired about Task Management officially withdrawing its representation of him. Harrison responded that Task Management would withdraw its representation of him for any further job postings through Campbell Soup. After this withdrawal, it appears Plaintiff attempted in various ways to apply for his role at Campbell Soup again, which had been relisted, but Plaintiff was not rehired or given an opportunity to compete for the role.

         Johnathan Wetchler, a legal representative of Campbell Soup from the law firm Duane Morris, informed Plaintiff on November 15, 2017 that his previous position had been filled in October 2017. Plaintiff argues this information contradicts the fact that Campbell Soup had retained an executive search firm to look for someone to fill the position. Plaintiff pleads that Denise Morrison, [8] Barroso, Keller, and Hayes asked Wetchler to communicate to Plaintiff that his role at Campbell Soup had been filled in October 2017.

         Plaintiff learned from Corie Hess, Task Management's Human Resource Manager, that the contract with Task Management was terminated because Task Management or Campbell Soup found out Plaintiff had filed lawsuits with other employers. Plaintiff admits to filing lawsuits against previous employers. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff reported to Scott, Mohan, and possibly others that Hess had told him he was terminated because of his previous lawsuits. Plaintiff alleges Mohan, Morrison, Barroso, Keller, and Hayes either made the decision or supported the decision to terminate the Task Management Agreement and encouraged subordinates to lie to Plaintiff about why the Task Management Agreement was terminated.

         Bernard Jacques is a legal representative for Task Management from the law firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter (“MDMC”). Jacques sent Plaintiff an October 6, 2017 letter, which “threaten[ed] Plaintiff [with] criminal prosecution.” Plaintiff pleads Jacques initiated a private citizen criminal prosecution against Plaintiff in Connecticut and told Plaintiff that he “wanted to send Plaintiff for psychiatry treatment.” Plaintiff pleads he was contacted by a Ridgefield, Connecticut detective by the name of Lou Kava. Plaintiff pleads Campbell Soup and Task Management attempted to induce the State of Connecticut to launch a criminal investigation against him.

         B. Procedural Posture in the 17-7506 action

         Plaintiff initiated the 17-7506 action on September 25, 2017 with the filing of a 109-page complaint, containing 693 numbered paragraphs. The initial complaint brought claims against Task Management, Mohan, Harrison, Hess, and Campbell Soup (listed as a “nominal defendant”). Plaintiff asserted federal question as his basis for jurisdiction. The Court issued an October 2, 2017 Order to Show Cause, finding Plaintiff's complaint did not raise a federal question, finding Plaintiff's complaint in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and allowing Plaintiff fifteen days to amend his complaint to properly assert subject matter jurisdiction.

         Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on October 10, 2017, removing Campbell Soup as a defendant in what the Court interpreted as an attempt to assert diversity jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint was 155 pages with 943 numbered paragraphs. On October 11, 2017, the Court issued another Order to Show Cause finding Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship of Defendants. The Court again found Plaintiff violated Rule 8(a) and allowed Plaintiff fifteen days to file another amended complaint.

         Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 13, 2017, which was 154 pages and consisted of 953 numbered paragraphs. The Second Amended Complaint did not list Campbell Soup as a defendant. The Court issued an October 17, 2017 Order to Show Cause, again finding Plaintiff failed to properly plead citizenship, finding Plaintiff violated Rule 8(a), and allowing Plaintiff fifteen days to file another amended complaint. On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, consisting of 164 pages and 990 numbered paragraphs. The Third Amended Complaint did not list Campbell Soup as a defendant.

         Plaintiff filed an October 18, 2017 Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the 17-7506 action. This motion was denied as moot by the Court, as Plaintiff thereafter filed a February 7, 2018 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Also before the Court is a December 11, 2017 Motion to Dismiss.

         C. Procedural Posture in the 18-298 Action

         Plaintiff's January 8, 2018 Complaint brings fifteen counts. Counts 1 and 2 bring Title VII claims, and Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 bring NJLAD claims. Counts 7 and 8 bring claims under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (NJCEPA). Plaintiff then brings the following common law claims: breach of contract (Count 9); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 10); negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence (Count 11); slander, libel and defamation (Count 12); wrongful termination (Count 13); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 14); and tortious interference with contract, business, and economic opportunities (Count 15).

         Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, several Motions to Dismiss, a Motion to Set Aside Default, several Motions to Strike, and Plaintiff's Motion requiring Defendants to Answer the Complaint.

         II. Motion to Dismiss in the 17-7506 Action

         The sole argument advanced in Defendants Task Management, Mohan, Hess, and Harrison's Motion to Dismiss in the 17-7506 action is that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Campbell Soup is a citizen of New Jersey and there is an ambiguity as to whether Campbell Soup is a party to the 17-7506 action. The Court finds Campbell Soup has not been a party to the 17-7506 action since Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

         While Campbell Soup was listed as a defendant in the original complaint, the three amended complaints that followed did not list Campbell Soup as a defendant. The Court has read Plaintiff's papers moving for a preliminary injunction. While they seek relief against Campbell Soup, that does not alone make Campbell Soup a party to this action; neither does Judge Schneider's December 4, 2017 Order and Campbell Soup's subsequent participation in litigating this matter following that Order. Judge Schneider's December 4, 2017 Order stated that “the Court f[ound] there is an ambiguity whether plaintiff intends to include Campbell as a named defendant” and ordered Campbell Soup to “attend all scheduled court conferences unless otherwise Ordered by the Court or Campbell is formally dismissed from the case.” Finding that Campbell Soup is no longer a party to this case, the Court will formally dismiss Campbell Soup from the 17-7506 action and the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on this basis.

         III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Finding Campbell Soup is not a party to the 17-7506 action, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the 17-7506 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Third Amended Complaint pleads that Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey. It pleads Task Management is incorporated in Connecticut and has its principal place of business in Connecticut, making it a citizen of Connecticut. The Third Amended Complaint also pleads Mohan is a citizen of New York, Hess is a citizen of Connecticut, and Harrison is a citizen of Connecticut. It similarly pleads an amount in controversy in excess of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, giving this Court diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the 18-298 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff asserts a cause of action under Title VII. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

         IV. Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction

         The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in both the 17-7506 action and the 18-298 action. “A district court must consider four elements in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction: (1) reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the moving party; (3) harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) the public interest.” Goodwin v. Castille, 465 Fed.Appx. 157, 160 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Iles v. de Jongh, 638 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2011)). Regardless of the likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff has not shown an irreparable injury.

         “Irreparable injury has been defined as ‘potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following a trial.'” Figueroa v. Precision Surgical, Inc., 423 Fed.Appx. 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Instant Air Freight Co. v. C. F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989)). “Indeed, such loss must not be merely economic, but ‘of a peculiar nature, so that compensation in money cannot atone for it.'” Id. (quoting A. O. Smith Corp. v. F.T.C., 530 F.2d 515, 525 (3d Cir. 1976)); accord Beberman v. U.S. Dep't of State, 675 Fed.Appx. 131, 134 (3d Cir. 2017) (“The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.” (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992))); Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 484-85 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The irreparable harm requirement is met if a plaintiff demonstrates a significant risk that he or she will experience harm that cannot adequately be compensated after the fact by monetary damages.” (citing Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102-03 (3d Cir. 1988))). “No less than a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury' is required.” Figueroa, 423 Fed.Appx. at 210 (citing Ammond v. McGahn, 532 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir. 1976)).

         Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint in the 17-7506 action makes various requests for damages as well as for reinstatement at his previous position. Plaintiff's “Demand for Relief” in the 18-298 action similarly seeks damages and reinstatement. The Court finds that, if Plaintiff can prove his claims, monetary damages will be sufficient to compensate Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not provided this Court with any convincing reason why monetary damages would not sufficiently compensate him or to justify the Court granting the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. See Issa v. Sch. Dist. of Lancaster, 847 F.3d 121, 131 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy granted in limited circumstances.”).

         “Although irreparable injury is only one of four ‘factors,' a moving party's inability to establish irreparable injury is, alone, fatal to the motion.” Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 715 F.Supp. 110, 112 (D. Del. 1989) (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 616 F.Supp. 335, 337-38 (D. Del. 1985)). As Plaintiff has failed to show irreparable injury, the Court will deny his motions for a preliminary injunction.

         V. Plaintiff's Repeated Violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states:

         A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

         Rule 8(d)(1) further states: “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Faced with Plaintiff's 285-page initial complaint in the 18-298 action, the Court finds Plaintiff has unquestionably violated Rule 8. In no way can Plaintiff's Complaint be described as “short and plain.”[9]

         Nonetheless, courts “tend to be flexible when applying procedural rules to pro se litigants, especially when interpreting their pleadings.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2013). Indeed, this is an “obligation” for district courts, “driven by the understanding that ‘[i]mplicit in the right of self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training.'” Higgs v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Tristman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006)).

         Plaintiff has been made aware of Rule 8 and how it can be violated. Prior to the filing of Plaintiff's 18-298 Complaint, this Court has reprimanded Plaintiff for repeated violations of this important rule of civil procedure.[10] Nonetheless, in the interest of reaching the merits of this case and moving this case forward, and in consideration of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in either the 17-7506 or 18-298 matters for violation of Rule 8. However, as the Court will elaborate on in its consideration of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint below, which this Court refuses to consider, the Court will no longer grant Plaintiff leniency in the filing of unnecessarily long and repetitive filings in this case, related matters, or any other matter before the undersigned. Plaintiff has been repeatedly reminded of the requirements of Rule 8, with this Opinion serving as Plaintiff's final reminder.

         VI. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the 18-298 Action

         Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 23, 2018. After the various defendants filed their motions to dismiss, Plaintiff requested an extension from the Court to respond to the motions. The Court's March 20, 2018 Order stated that Plaintiff's opposition to the pending motions was extended to April 23, 2018 and reset the motion day for May 7, 2018. The moving defendants appear to argue that this extension related only to any opposition briefs Plaintiff might file, not to the filing of an amended complaint. Regardless of whether the Court's Order extended the time in which Plaintiff could file an amended complaint as a matter of course, in no way did this Court's Order grant Plaintiff permission to file an Amended Complaint consisting of 332 pages and 1200 paragraphs.

         This Court has previously found a 139-paragraph amended complaint “d[id] not provide a ‘short and plain statement' of the claims” as required by Rule 8. Wilcher v. Potter, No. 08-2723, 2009 WL 235497, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2009). The length of the Amended Complaint in this case more than doubles the length of the amended complaint in Wilcher. Similarly, in Brejcak v. County of Bucks, No. 03-4688, 2004 WL 377675 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2004), the court found a 45-page, 216-paragraph amended complaint “runs afoul of the letter and spirit of the Federal Rules.” Id. at *2. The court noted: “While there is no precise algorithm that answers at what length a complaint becomes objectionable, it is reasonable to conclude that 216 separate paragraphs are excessive under notice pleading, which the Federal Rules require.” Id. at *3. The Complaint in this action is much longer than the 45-page complaint in Brejcak.

         The Court has no hesitation in concluding that a 332-page, 1200-pagaraph amended complaint is objectionable and a blatant violation of both the explicit mandates and the spirit of the Federal Rules. This Court will not exert its valuable time and resources, nor require Defendants to exert their time and resources, reading, analyzing, and responding to an amended complaint of this length, particularly after analyzing and responding to an initial complaint consisting of 285 pages and 1581 paragraphs, which was replete with repetitive statements this Court had to parse through.

         Four Motions to Strike were filed with regard to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. On April 27, 2018, Defendants Campbell Soup, Morrison, Barroso, Keller, Duane Morris, and Wetchler moved to strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. Similarly, on May 4, 2018, Defendants Task Management, Mohan, Hess, Harrison, Jacques, and MDMC also moved to strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. On June 20, 2018, Defendant Trevor Taniguchi and Defendant Dayne Johnson separately moved to strike the Amended Complaint.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides:

The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:
(1) on its own; or
(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading, or if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.

         The Court will strike the purported Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 12(f).

         As follows, the Court will dismiss most of Plaintiff's claims, but Plaintiff will be permitted to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint, if he so chooses. Any proposed amended complaint must conform to Rule 8 and must take into account the legal conclusions already made by this Court in this Opinion and the accompanying Order. If any proposed amended complaint is found to violate Rule 8, the Court will not hesitate to dismiss that complaint too, on motion of any defendant or sua sponte.

         Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff clearly decided to amend his complaint in lieu of filing opposition to the various motions to dismiss in the 18-298 matter. In the interest of moving this matter forward, the Court will consider the merits of these motions and of Plaintiff's claims. The Court concludes Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this course of action, as Plaintiff is permitted to seek leave to file an amended complaint to cure the noted deficiencies in his claims.

         VII. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in the 18-298 Action

         A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

         When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it contains “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

         “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (first citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957); Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994); and then citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

To determine the sufficiency of a complaint, a court must take three steps. First, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Second, the court should identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Third, “whe[n] there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.”

Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664, 675, 679 (2009)).

         A district court, in weighing a motion to dismiss, asks “not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684 (“Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions' . . . .”); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (“Iqbal . . . provides the final nail in the coffin for the ‘no set of facts' standard that applied to federal complaints before Twombly.”). “A motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff is unable to plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Malleus, 641 F.3d at 563 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

         B. Plaintiff's Pro Se Status

         One of the arguments for dismissal in the 18-298 action is based on Plaintiff's pro se status. It is argued that Plaintiff is seeking to bring certain claims on behalf of the Kamdem Group, which Task Management identifies as a New Jersey corporation and as an “incorporated consulting business.” Task Management argues Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, cannot represent the Kamdem Group in federal court.

         The Court recognizes that a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney in federal court. Indeed, “[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); accord United States v. Cocivera, 104 F.3d 566, 572 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A] corporation may not be represented by other than licensed counsel.”); Harrison v. Wahatoyas, 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001) (“As a general mater, a corporation or other business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not through a non-attorney corporate officer appearing pro se.” (citing Flora Constr. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962))); Cohen v. Birrane, No. 16-893, 2017 WL 2709566, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. June 23, 2017) (“Just as a business entity cannot ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.