Diamore v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Full title: MICHAEL L. DIAMORE, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC

Court: United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Date published: Mar 26, 2002

3:01-CV-961 (EBB) (D. Conn. Mar. 26, 2002)

Opinion

3:01-CV-961 (EBB)

March 26, 2002.

RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS, OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ELLEN BREE BURNS, Senior United States District Judge.

Decision on a summary judgment motion requires the Court to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof, reviewing same in the non-movant's favor, in order to see if there is a genuine need for trial. After review of the thorough memoranda of law, exhibits thereto and the Local Rule 9(c) Statements submitted by counsel in this case, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the knowledge, if any, Plaintiff had of the early retirement plan. He denies having any knowledge until the day before his actual retirement date, when it was too late to do anything about it. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that he was given notice three times before his retirement. Inasmuch as this is crucial to this case, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13] is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED