Robuck v. Mine Safety Appliances Company

1 Citing case

  1. Dilmore v. Alion Science Technology Corp.

    Civil Action No. 11-72 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 11, 2011)   Cited 2 times
    Presuming that a challenge to defendant's responses based on their purported noncompliance with Rule 8(b) operated under Rule 12(f)

    As this discussion indicates, this Court declines to accept this argument in the context of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.See Robuck v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., Civ. No. 10-763, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104956, *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2010); Lapic v. MTD Prods., Inc., Civ. No. 09-760, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84925, *9-10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2009); Romantine v. CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., Civ. No. 09-973, 2009 WL 3417469, *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2009); Tyco Fire Prods. LP v. Victaulic Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 1399847, *5 (E.D. Pa. 2011); F.T.C. v. Hope Now Modifications, LLC, Civ. No. 09-1204, 2011 WL 883202, *3 (D.N.J. 2011); Charleswell v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 01-119, 2009 WL 4981730, *4 (D.V.I. Dec. 8, 2009).