Filed: Mar. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 61), the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65), the Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 70), the Reply (Doc. No. 72), and the pertinent sections of Norman Mailer: A Double Life , and in accordance with the Opinion issued by the Court on this day, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED IN P
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 61), the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65), the Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 70), the Reply (Doc. No. 72), and the pertinent sections of Norman Mailer: A Double Life , and in accordance with the Opinion issued by the Court on this day, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED IN PA..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 61), the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65), the Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 70), the Reply (Doc. No. 72), and the pertinent sections of Norman Mailer: A Double Life, and in accordance with the Opinion issued by the Court on this day, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's Commercial Disparagement-Injurious Conduct claim and part of Plaintiff's defamation claim.
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's defamation per se claim, Plaintiff's false light claim, and part of Plaintiff's defamation claim.
3. Defendants are ORDERED to file an Answer to Plaintiff's remaining claims within fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order.
