ROBERT v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 11-5917. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120329905
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following: the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia; Plaintiffs' Response by Robert and Barbara Latimore; Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response; and matters of public record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED because Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims are time-barred since they did not exercise
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following: the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia; Plaintiffs' Response by Robert and Barbara Latimore; Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response; and matters of public record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED because Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims are time-barred since they did not exercise t..
More
ORDER
ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following: the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia; Plaintiffs' Response by Robert and Barbara Latimore; Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response; and matters of public record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED because Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims are time-barred since they did not exercise their right to sue within the applicable two-year time period from the date that they knew or should have known of an injury.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will not be permitted an opportunity to amend their Complaint because doing so would be futile in light of the untimeliness of their Complaint.
Source: Leagle
