DEBRUYNE v. NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 550, 715, 723, 719, 725 and 713, Dockets 92-7732, 92-7962, 92-9006, 92-9014, 92-9016, and 92-9018.

Advocates

Steven J. Phillips, New York City (Levy Phillips Konigsberg, New York City, Michael A. Ponterio, Lipsitz Green Fahringer Roll Salisbury Cambria, Buffalo, N.Y., Arnold C. Lakind, Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Watter Blader, Lawrenceville, NJ, Alaine S. Williams, Willig Williams Davidson, Philadelphia, PA, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees-petitioners.

Judges

Thomas Joseph Meskill
George Cheney Pratt
Ralph K. Winter

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

MARGUERITE DEBRUYNE; PETER DEBRUYNE; GAYLE SIMMS; JAMES SIMMS; MADELINE BERNICE STRANGE; ROBIN A. PALLEY; TONYA MOORE; CATHY MERCANTINI; SHIRLEY BADON; JAMES BADON; KAREN MOTCHNIK; DEBORAH Z. ZOOK; THOMAS D. ZOOK; LINDA E. HUGHES; ARTHUR S. HUGHES; LORRAINE NIEVES; MARYLAND JOHNSON BUSH; CAROL JAMIESON; CAROL WITZEL; EDWARD S. WITZEL; EUNICE A. CHATTMAN; RONALD W. CHATTMAN; PAMELA J. HOLMAN; TERRY ADAMIAK; CARMELITA TACBAD; MARIO TACBAD; BELINDA EDWARDS; KAREN M. LAWRENCE; WILLIAM R. LAWRENCE; ELEANOR M. KELLY; ROBERT M. KELLY; JOANN N. RICHMOND; ADELLE MARTIN; ROBERT D. MARTIN; ANNA M. BURROUGHS; RAYMOND BURROUGHS; MARGARET JOHNSON; JAMES JOHNSON; MARGARET DePAOLO; ELIZABETH MOORE; GERALD R. MOORE; GLADYS GREEN; AMY L. TURRENTINE; HELEN COUNTSOUROS; ANTHONY COUNTSOUROS; GREGORY TIMMONS; KATHLEEN W. TRZECIAK; JANE TEABOUT; FRANCES MANOS; SHARON KISSLING; BARBARA DAY; MARIA PARUOLO; JOSEPHINE ESPOSITO; DENISE D'ALLESANDRO; JOAN E. BARTEK; JULIUS BARTEK; LORRAINE JABKOWSKI; VICTOR L. JABKOWSKI; FRANCES DIANE POLLACK; ALEXANDER POLLACK; ZORCA S. RADA; HUGO RADA; DONNA SCAFFARO; TERRENCE SCAFFARO; DOROTHY DEBIASE; JUDITH SHOEMAKER; BENJAMIN SOTOMAYER; ARGELIA RUIZ; PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES-PETITIONERS, v. NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION; STENOGRAPH CORP.; QUIXOTE CORPORATION; ATEX, INC.; EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY; GLOBE FOOD EQUIPMENT COMPANY; NORTHERN TELECOM, INC.; NORTHERN TELECOM LTD.; BELL CANADA; BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD.; KAINSAI SPECIAL USA CORP.; DATA POINT CORPORATION; PRIME COMPUTER INC.; SYSTEM INTEGRATORS, INC.; ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORP.; ZENITH DATA SYSTEMS, INC.; PANASONIC COMPANY; FLORE INDUSTRIES INC.; LOCKHEED CORPORATION; ONTEL CORPORATION; VISUAL TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED; NCR CORPORATION; MEMOREX CORPORATION; MEMOREX TELEX CORP.; APPLE COMPUTER, INC.; AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY; APOLLO COMPUTERS INC.; HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY; DATA GENERAL CORP. AND AS SUCCESSOR TO DATACHECKER SYSTEMS, INC., DEFENDANTS, WANG LABORATORIES, INC. AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS. KAINSAI SPECIAL USA CORP., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,

PER CURIAM:

We assume familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this dispute as laid out in our previous decisions. In In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 1993), we held that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating forty-four cases representing a wide range of both factual and legal contexts, and we granted mandamus relief sua sponte.

The petitioners whose actions were deconsolidated petitioned for rehearing on the grounds that our sua sponte grant of a writ of mandamus deprived the appellees and the district court of an opportunity to be heard on the issue. As we agreed that the district court should have had an opportunity to respond before our issuance of a writ of mandamus, our decision in In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 35 F.3d 637 (2d Cir. 1994), solicited arguments from the district court as to whether we should reconsider our decision.

The district court has declined to set forth its views on our sua sponte grant of a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the petition for rehearing is denied in its entirety.

Comments