Cases

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. The government appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in favor of Massachusetts Mutual Life In *1357 suranee Company (“MassMutual”) and Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company (“ConnMutual”). The Court of Federal Claims ruled that MassMutual and

OPINION HORN, Judge. “While in some eases, ‘timing is everything,’ here timing is the only thing....”1 FINDINGS OF FACT The plaintiff, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual), on behalf of itself, and as successor to Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company (ConnMutual), brought this claim to recover funds allegedly ove

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BRADEN, Judge. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided five federal income tax cases applying the “all events test,” established by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 422, 431, 46 S.Ct. 131, 70 L.Ed. 347 (1926), none has addressed whether the right to receive supplemental premium income is “fi

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. RApp. P. 42(b).

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

OPINION MARGOLIS, Judge. Plaintiff, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, a life insurance company taxable under section 802 of the Internal Revenue Code,1 seeks to recover alleged overpayments of federal income taxes and assessed interest for the taxable years 1960-61 and 1963-66 in the net amount of about 1.2 million dollars. In

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.

*280ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF NON-PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS (# 65) CABELL, United States Magistrate Judge. Currently before the court is plaintiff Karen L. Bacchi’s (“the plaintiff’) Motion to Compel Production of Non-Privileged Discovery from defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Mass Mutual” or “the defendant”)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE DEFENDANT MASS-MUTUAL’S WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO PRECLUDE MASSMUTUAL FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE IMPLICATING ADVICE OF COUNSEL (# 63) CABELL, United States Magistrate Judge. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Karen L. Bacchi’s Motion to Enforce Defendant MassMutual’s Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege or, Alternatively, to Pr

Roach, Christine M., J. Plaintiff Jessica C. Rule, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, brings this action against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual), claiming it used a false and deceptive February 2014 Proxy Statement (Proxy) to obtain its member-owners’ required approval of proposed By-law changes. Rule seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory judgment related to the inspec

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Mutual) appeals from a decision of the United States Claims Court, Margolis, J, (5 Cl.Ct. 581 (1984)) granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment. At issue is the proper treatment of a particular bad debt loss under the special provisions rela

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 20-2103 20-2135 JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defen

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CATHERINE C. EAGLES, District Judge. David Bardes filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2011, against Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, alleging that Mass-Mutual filed W2s with various governmental entities that falsely asserted the payment of money to Mr. Bardes. (Doc. 2.) Mr. Bardes was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis on his state-law fraud and fra