Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

PETER RAND, et al., Plaintiffs v. BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil No. 99-227-P-C

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Bath Iron Works Corporation ("BIW"), having removed the instant case from the Maine Superior Court (Androscoggin County), now moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims against it on the ground of preemption pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the "LMRA"). Defendant Bath Iron Works Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Defendant's Motion") (Docket No. 42) at 1-21; see also Notice of Removal (Docket No. 1); Amended Complaint ("Complaint") (Docket No. 1A). For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the Defendant's Motion be denied.2

1

Although titled a "memorandum," the document in issue is docketed as, and was clearly intended to be, a motion with incorporated memorandum of law. A supplemental memorandum filed by BIW in support of the instant motion was withdrawn without prejudice and hence has not been taken into consideration. See Bath Iron Works' Supplement to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Plaintiffs' New Admissions of Facts (Docket No. 53); Joint Stipulation of the Parties Regarding Discovery Matters (Docket No. 64)

Download DMC_02152001_2-99cv227_RAND_V_BIW.pdf

Maine Law