MISCOVITCH v. JUDGE, 09-2699. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120504b02
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge. AND NOW, this 30th day of April 2012, upon review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34], and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 38], and Defendants' Reply [Doc. No. 39, Ex. 1] and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the claims against Defendant DiGuglielmo, as he was not added as a defendant within the applicable statute of limi
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge. AND NOW, this 30th day of April 2012, upon review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34], and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 38], and Defendants' Reply [Doc. No. 39, Ex. 1] and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the claims against Defendant DiGuglielmo, as he was not added as a defendant within the applicable statute of limit..
More
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 30th day of April 2012, upon review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34], and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 38], and Defendants' Reply [Doc. No. 39, Ex. 1] and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the claims against Defendant DiGuglielmo, as he was not added as a defendant within the applicable statute of limitations;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to the claims against Defendants Zimmerman and Judge, without prejudice to Defendants' right to reassert the affirmative defenses of statute of limitation and failure to exhaust administrative remedies after the factual record is developed.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
