Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Freeman v. Early Warning Services, LLC, 19-cv-05699. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20200310g19 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER EDUARDO C. ROBRENO , District Judge . AND NOW this 9th day of March, 2020 , upon consideration of Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), and the response and reply thereto (ECF No. 16 & 17-1), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED ; 2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of s
More

ORDER

AND NOW this 9th day of March, 2020, upon consideration of Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), and the response and reply thereto (ECF No. 16 & 17-1), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED;

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

3. The case shall be marked as CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Cottrell v. Alcon Labs., 874 F.3d 154, 164 n.7 (3d Cir. 2017) ("Because the absence of standing leaves the court without subject matter jurisdiction to reach a decision on the merits, dismissals `with prejudice' for lack of standing are generally improper").
Source:  Leagle

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