RILEY v. ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER, 13-7205. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20151007e25
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH , District Judge . This 6th day of October, 2015, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 1 FootNotes 1. Although I have not issued sanctions, the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel certainly reaches the outer boundary of permissible advo
Summary: ORDER GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH , District Judge . This 6th day of October, 2015, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 1 FootNotes 1. Although I have not issued sanctions, the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel certainly reaches the outer boundary of permissible advoc..
More
ORDER
GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge.
This 6th day of October, 2015, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.1
FootNotes
1. Although I have not issued sanctions, the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel certainly reaches the outer boundary of permissible advocacy, and the Court takes a particularly dim view of the contradictory post-deposition Certifications filed. Counsel and his firm would be well advised to avoid such behavior in the future.
Source: Leagle
