Opinion ID: 2318487
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantially Similar

Text: Kumar argues that the appellees' motion on the day of trial was substantially similar to its prior motion for summary judgment that Judge Terrell denied. [5] Both Judges Terrell and Combs Greene were presented with the argument that Kumar could not show harm flowing from WASA's representation that he must immediately sign his severance agreement and waiver because Kumar was subsequently allowed to revoke his waiver and pursue his age-based claims. The only new issue raised before Judge Combs Greene was whether it was appropriate for a jury to decide whether WASA was also required by law to allow Kumar to revoke his resignation. This issue, however, was not the impetus for Judge Combs Greene's decision, [6] as demonstrated by her statement that though she tend[ed] to agree with the defense's argument on the OWBPA jury question issue, more importantly, [she] agree[d] fully with the defense that there's no damage. Judge Combs Greene went on to hold that Kumar can[not] show damage and that's a necessary element, [] so that claim is dismissed. Because this is precisely what the appellees argued in their prior summary judgment motion, we conclude that the motions were substantially similar. See Tompkins, supra, 433 A.2d at 1098.