Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MASON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 13-5163. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20140623b00 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff, Florence Elizabeth Mason's ("Plaintiff"), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, the City of Philadelphia, Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and Police Officers Fleming, Fredricsdorf, Kopecki, Whaley, Tees, Hummel, Lamdherr, Medycki, Riddi
More

ORDER

ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge.

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff, Florence Elizabeth Mason's ("Plaintiff"), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, the City of Philadelphia, Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and Police Officers Fleming, Fredricsdorf, Kopecki, Whaley, Tees, Hummel, Lamdherr, Medycki, Riddick, Long, Kensy, and Lackey's, Motion to Dismiss1 on or before July 3, 2014 (Doc. No. 17); (2) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, Kenneth L. Baritz, Esq., and the Law Firm of Kenneth L. Baritz & Associates', Motion to Dismiss on or before July 17, 2014 (Doc. No. 25); (3) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, PHA, Kelvin Jeremiah, Patrick Agnew, and Frank McLaughlin's, Motion to Dismiss on or before July 31, 2014 (Doc. No. 26); (4) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, Robert H. Messerman, Esq., his law firm and its employees, and Earl Smith's, Motion to Dismiss on or before August 14, 2014 (Doc. 32); and (5) Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendants, Bart Levy, Esq., and Levy Law LLC's, Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, a Motion for a More Definite Statement on or before August 28, 2014 (Doc. No. 35).

FootNotes


1. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(c) provides in relevant part that: Unless the Court directs otherwise, any party opposing [a] motion shall serve a brief in opposition together with such answer or other response that may be appropriate, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion and supporting brief.

E.D. Pa. Local R. 7.1(c). Because of this Court's consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Plaintiff is not out of time to file Responses to the Motions to Dismiss filed by the numerous Defendants in this action. Thus, in accordance with this Local Rule, Plaintiff is granted the time specified in this Order to file Responses if she so desires.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer