From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MORALES v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Oct 18, 2004
No. 02-CV-786 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2004)

Summary

denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to show plaintiff's misstatement of income was fraudulent or in bad faith

Summary of this case from Hunt v. Con Edison Co.

Opinion

No. 02-CV-786.

October 18, 2004


ORDER


The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), on January 30, 2003. On September 21, 2004, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied and the complaint dismissed.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties. No objections having been timely filed, it is hereby

ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied and the complaint dismissed unless, within 10 days following the date of this Order, plaintiff pays the required filing fee to the Clerk of Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

MORALES v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Oct 18, 2004
No. 02-CV-786 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2004)

denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to show plaintiff's misstatement of income was fraudulent or in bad faith

Summary of this case from Hunt v. Con Edison Co.
Case details for

MORALES v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:DAVID MORALES, Plaintiff, v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Oct 18, 2004

Citations

No. 02-CV-786 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2004)

Citing Cases

Hunt v. Con Edison Co.

Despite this mandatory language, many courts have concluded that "dismissal [is] a 'harsh remedy to be saved…