Search Results

0 results for ''Tucker Arensberg''

You can use to get even better search results
Allied Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund
Publication Date: 2024-07-22
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Construction
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Justice Matey
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Neil J. Gregorio, Jill D. Helbling, and Richard B. Tucker, III (Tucker Arensberg)
For defendant: Gregory R. Begg (Peckar & Abramson)
Case number: 23-1537

Pension Fund's Failure to Provide Reasonably Prompt Notice of Withdrawal Liability Statutorily Precluded Recovery

Zurn Indus., LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Fisher
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Patrick J. Murphy, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI; Robert L. Byer, Thomas E. Sanchez, Duane Morris, Pittsburgh, PA; Gavin Fung, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Boston, MA; Ralph J. Luongo, Kennedys CMK, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
For defendant: Robert R. Anderson, III, Christopher A. Johnson, Margaret Truesdale, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dyn, Chicago, IL; Timothy R. Smith, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith; Ralph J. Luongo, Kennedys CMK, Philadelphia, PA; Myles D. Morrison, James P. Ruggeri, Ruggeri Parks & Weinberg, Washington, DC; Michael A. Shiner, Tucker Arensberg, Pittsburgh, PA for appellees.
Case number: 21-3032

Noting that the exception to the final judgment rule for appellate court jurisdiction required injunctive relief and that none of the District Court's partial summary judgment orders rose to the functional equivalent of an injunction, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the orders.

Prime Energy & Chem., LLC v. Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Publication Date: 2020-01-20
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Energy | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Carlson
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: 20-0045

Defendant moved to strike plaintiff's reply brief that was filed without awaiting leave of court and plaintiff's counsel's letter that was not placed on the docket and magistrate judge denied the motion because the proposed reply brief and correspondence from counsel were not so irrelevant and highly prejudicial that they should be stricken from the record. Motion denied.

In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc.
Publication Date: 2012-05-18
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry:
Court: THIRD CIRCUIT
Judge: Scirica, C.J.
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: D64972

In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc.
Publication Date: 2012-05-16
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry:
Court: THIRD CIRCUIT
Judge: Scirica, C.J.
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: D64972

Resources