FLEET v. CSX INTERMODAL, INC., 17-3562. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20171221f54
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARK A. KEARNEY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 20 th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF Doc. No. 14), Plaintiffs Response (ECF Doc. No. 21), Plaintiffs Motion for leave to amend to supplement inadvertent omissions (ECF Doc. No. 22) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED: a. with prejudice as to Mr. Fleet's Title VII an
Summary: ORDER MARK A. KEARNEY , District Judge . AND NOW, this 20 th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF Doc. No. 14), Plaintiffs Response (ECF Doc. No. 21), Plaintiffs Motion for leave to amend to supplement inadvertent omissions (ECF Doc. No. 22) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED: a. with prejudice as to Mr. Fleet's Title VII and..
More
ORDER
MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2017, upon considering Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF Doc. No. 14), Plaintiffs Response (ECF Doc. No. 21), Plaintiffs Motion for leave to amend to supplement inadvertent omissions (ECF Doc. No. 22) and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant Lowe's Motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED:
a. with prejudice as to Mr. Fleet's Title VII and Section 955(a) claims against Defendant Lowe;
b. without prejudice as to Mr. Fleet's claims against Defendant Lowe under Section 1981, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Section 955 (d) and (e) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Section 9-1103 of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance with leave for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint no later than January 4, 2018 addressing, if possible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, the identified deficiencies in his remaining claims against Defendant Lowe and supplementing under his Motion for leave (ECF Doc. No. 22); and,
2. Plaintiffs Motion to amend (ECF Doc. No. 22) is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
