welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2012
  5. HAWK VALLEY, INC. v. TAYLOR, 10-cv-00804. (2012)

HAWK VALLEY, INC. v. TAYLOR, 10-cv-00804. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20120403c22 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge Now this 30 th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following: (1) Defendants, Elaine G. Taylor and Environmental Process Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which motion was filed April 14, 2011 (Document 37); together with, (a) Defendants, Elaine G. Taylor and Environmental Process Systems, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion
More

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge

Now this 30th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following:

(1) Defendants, Elaine G. Taylor and Environmental Process Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which motion was filed April 14, 2011 (Document 37); together with, (a) Defendants, Elaine G. Taylor and Environmental Process Systems, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (2) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which response was filed April 28, 2011 (Document 38); (3) Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which reply memorandum was filed May 11, 2011 (Document 40); (4) Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority filed November 28, 2011 (Document 42);1 (5) Class Action Complaint filed by plaintiff February 24, 2010 (Document 1); (6) Order of the undersigned dated February 25, 2011, and accompanying Opinion, which Order and Opinion were filed February 28, 2011 (Documents 35 and 34, respectively); and (7) First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by plaintiff March 25, 2011 (Document 36);

and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

FootNotes


1. Defendants attached, as Exhibit A to their notice, the November 22, 2011 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear LLC, 662 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2011)(Posner, C.J.). Defendants assert that Creative Montessori is factually similar to this matter and note that plaintiff's counsel was involved in the matter.

While Creative Montessori, supra, involved a class action in which private Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claims were asserted, the Opinion of the Seventh Circuit addressed an appeal from a district court order certifying the class rather than a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction or the limitations period applicable to private TCPA claims. For that reason, it does not bear on, and is not addressed in, the accompanying Opinion.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
10-cv-00804.
Counsels
  • ALAN C. MILSTEIN
  • BRIAN J. WANCA
  • JOHN J. HAGGERTY
  • STEPHANIE B. FINEMAN
Cited By (1)
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer