Milone v. Travelers Insurance

Second Circuit

Milone v. Travelers Insurance

93 F. App'x 323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2004

DocketNo. 02-7825

StatusPublished

This text of 93 F. App'x 323 (Milone v. Travelers Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milone v. Travelers Insurance, 93 F. App'x 323 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

The plaintiffs appeal from the District Court’s (1) grant of summary judgment dismissing their age discrimination, retaliation, and conversion claims, and (2) denial of their renewed motion to alter or amend the judgment based on novel claims of antitrust price-fixing.

For substantially the reasons stated in Judge Keenan’s thorough opinion, we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to alter or amend the judgment. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 59.30[6] (3d ed.2002) (explaining that a motion to amend or alter a judgment may not be used to argue new legal theories) (citing numerous cases). Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by refusing to reinstate an ERISA claim, we find no error.

We have considered all of the plaintiffs’ claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

The plaintiffs appeal from the District Court’s (1) grant of summary judgment dismissing their age discrimination, retaliation, and conversion claims, and (2) denial of their renewed motion to alter or amend the judgment based on novel claims of antitrust price-fixing.

For substantially the reasons stated in Judge Keenan’s thorough opinion, we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to alter or amend the judgment. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 59.30[6] (3d ed.2002) (explaining that a motion to amend or alter a judgment may not be used to argue new legal theories) (citing numerous cases). Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by refusing to reinstate an ERISA claim, we find no error.

We have considered all of the plaintiffs’ claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 F. App'x 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milone-v-travelers-insurance-ca2-2004.