Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 4, 2009

PAMELA HANCOCK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., AND THE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On June 16, 2009, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The gist of Wal-Mart's motion is that Hancock's ERISA claim is not properly brought against it, her employer, and that Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, the co-defendant and Claims Administrator responsible for the decision to deny Hancock's benefits, is the proper party.

In a minute entry on July 16, Magistrate Judge Frazier notes that a stipulation would be filed to dismiss Wal-Mart (see Doc. 18). No stipulation has been filed. Pursuant to Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(c), Hancock's response to the motion was due on or before July 20, 2009. Nothing was filed. Local Rule 7.1(c) warns litigants that "[f]ailure to timely file an answering brief to a motion may, in the Court's discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion."

The Court exercises its discretion, GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Doc. 11), and DISMISSES Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly at the conclusion of the entire action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge

20090804

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.