DRAKE v. HYUNDAI ROTEM USA, CORP., 13-0868. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20130829b88
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2013
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW , this 28 th day of August , 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Hyundai Rotem USA, Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11), Plaintiff Olivia Drake's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 12), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Count II of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Motion is DENIED as to
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW , this 28 th day of August , 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Hyundai Rotem USA, Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11), Plaintiff Olivia Drake's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 12), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Count II of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Motion is DENIED as to C..
More
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Hyundai Rotem USA, Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11), Plaintiff Olivia Drake's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 12), and Defendant's Reply Brief (Docket No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Count II of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Motion is DENIED as to Count I.
3. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' Class and Collective Action claims.
Source: Leagle
