FRAZIER v. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, 11-1863. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120214c27
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2012
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge. AND NOW, this 10 th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant, Exide Technologies, "Motion to Dismiss In Part" (Doc. No. 9) and Plaintiff's response thereto, and for reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as follows: 1. Defendant's motion regarding Plaintiff's national origin and retaliation claims (Count I) is DENIED; and 2. De
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge. AND NOW, this 10 th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant, Exide Technologies, "Motion to Dismiss In Part" (Doc. No. 9) and Plaintiff's response thereto, and for reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as follows: 1. Defendant's motion regarding Plaintiff's national origin and retaliation claims (Count I) is DENIED; and 2. Def..
More
ORDER
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant, Exide Technologies, "Motion to Dismiss In Part" (Doc. No. 9) and Plaintiff's response thereto, and for reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as follows:
1. Defendant's motion regarding Plaintiff's national origin and retaliation claims (Count I) is DENIED; and
2. Defendant's motion regarding Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (Count II) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
