Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07–2602–EFM. |
| Citation | 938 F.Supp.2d 1090 |
| Parties | William Douglas FULGHUM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EMBARQ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alan M. Sandals, Scott Michael Lempert, Sandals & Associates, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Amii Castle, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, Kansas City, MO, Bruce Keplinger, Christopher J. Lucas, Norris & Keplinger, L.L.C., Overland Park, KS, Diane A. Nygaard, The Nygaard Law Firm, Mary C. O'Connell, R. Douglas Gentile, Douthit, Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC, Leawood, KS, Richard T. Seymour, Adele Rapport, Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC, Washington, DC, Stewart W. Fisher, Jessica E. Leaven, Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, PA, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs.
D. Michelle Morlock, pro se.
Henry John Roehr, pro se.
Jack Bailey, pro se.
Veronica P. Crawley, pro se.
Eunice McNeal, pro se.
Amy Stettler pro se.
Shirley G. Hammock, pro se.
Eleanor E. Huston, pro se.
Vena Rogers, pro se.
Eleanor Wildhab–Daly, pro se.
Darlynn Muhlbach, pro se.
Annette E. Wantz, pro se.
Roger Dennis Hutchison, pro se.
Carolyn Kuklok, pro se.
Diane Phillips, pro se.
Hollis Phillips, pro se.
Mary Sharp Miller, pro se.
Leo Colabauth, pro se.
Valerie Kern, pro se.
Brian K. O'Bleness, Christopher J. Leopold, Mark D. Hinderks, Scott C. Hecht, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kansas City, MO, James P. Walsh, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Princeton, NJ, Joseph J. Costello, Michael L. Banks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher J. Koenigs, Michael B. Carroll, Sherman & Howard LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (In re in Retirees & Emps. of Sprint Corp.)
...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
...members whose post-retirement health and life insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by Defendants. Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1097–99 (D.Kan.2013). The class “includes retired employees and their eligible dependents who retired before January 1, 2008 from Embarq or......
-
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
...to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally. Koch, 6 F.Supp.2d at 1209;Fulghum v. Embarq Corp., 938 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1137–39 (D.Kan.2013). In its motion and memorandum, Martin Marietta does not cite or apply these standards from the court's local rules......