SPENCER v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, 17-3775. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20171222h72
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2017
Summary: ORDER HARVEY BARTLE, III , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the motion of defendant Macy's, Inc. to dismiss the complaint in its entirety is GRANTED; (2) the motion of defendant Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss Count III of the complaint, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), is GRANTED; and (3) the motion of Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss the compla
Summary: ORDER HARVEY BARTLE, III , District Judge . AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the motion of defendant Macy's, Inc. to dismiss the complaint in its entirety is GRANTED; (2) the motion of defendant Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss Count III of the complaint, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), is GRANTED; and (3) the motion of Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss the complai..
More
ORDER
HARVEY BARTLE, III, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) the motion of defendant Macy's, Inc. to dismiss the complaint in its entirety is GRANTED;
(2) the motion of defendant Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss Count III of the complaint, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), is GRANTED; and
(3) the motion of Bloomingdale's King of Prussia to dismiss the complaint is otherwise DENIED.
Source: Leagle
