Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

KAREN A. PULKKINEN, )
)
PLAINTIFF )
)

v. ) CIVIL NO. 09-99-P-H
) FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, ) INC. AND VERIZON NEW ) ENGLAND, INC., )
)
DEFENDANTS )

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Upon de novo review, I ADOPT the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge. I realize that the defendant Verizon New England believes
that the Magistrate Judge misconstrued its argument. It says that it is not
seeking to use collateral estoppel from previous arbitration decisions to
establish whether it violated statutory law, but only to establish certain facts
from the previous arbitration proceedings (and then argue here that the law
requires judgment in its favor given those facts). Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court has not disavowed its statement in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver
Company, 415 U.S. 36 (1974), that

Download DBH_04212010_2-09cv99_PULKKINEN_V_FAIRPOINT.pdf

Maine Law