Rush v. 220 Ingraham Operating Corp., 5:17-cv-01293. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180522b43
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 21, 2018
Latest Update: May 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW , this 18 th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the pending Motion to Dismiss and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the breach of contract claim and negligent retention claim, and Counts One and Four are DISMISSED with prejudice . 2. The Motion to
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW , this 18 th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the pending Motion to Dismiss and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the breach of contract claim and negligent retention claim, and Counts One and Four are DISMISSED with prejudice . 2. The Motion to D..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR., District Judge.
AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the pending Motion to Dismiss and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the breach of contract claim and negligent retention claim, and Counts One and Four are DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to the claim for punitive damages in Count Three.
Source: Leagle
