Glover v. Tacony Academy Charter School, 18-56. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180626e47
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2018, upon consideration of American Paradigm Schools' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Response thereto (ECF No. 45), and Defendant's Reply in Further Support Thereof (ECF No. 48), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against American Paradigm Schools are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of the TACS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2018, upon consideration of American Paradigm Schools' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Response thereto (ECF No. 45), and Defendant's Reply in Further Support Thereof (ECF No. 48), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against American Paradigm Schools are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of the TACS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (E..
More
ORDER
WENDY BEETLESTONE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2018, upon consideration of American Paradigm Schools' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff's Response thereto (ECF No. 45), and Defendant's Reply in Further Support Thereof (ECF No. 48), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against American Paradigm Schools are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of the TACS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33), Plaintiff's Response thereto (ECF No. 46), and the TACS Defendants' Reply in Further Support thereof (ECF No. 49), IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count One (Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Two (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Three (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is GRANTED. Count Three is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(4) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Four (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(5) Defendants Motion to Dismiss Count Five (defamation) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.
(6) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Six (loss of consortium) is GRANTED. Count Six is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
