FREEDOM MEDICAL, INC. v. GILLESPIE et al

Filing 589

ORDER THAT MS. HALL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED & THE U.S. MED DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFT SANDRA "DAWN&quo t; HALL & AGAINST PLFF ON ALL CLAIMS AGAINST HER. THE CLERK SHALL TERMINATE MS. HALL AS A DEFT IN THIS CASE. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL THREE OF THE U.S. MED DEFTS & AGAINST PLFF ON THE CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM UNDER THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRECT ORGANIZATIONS ACT. WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE LAW CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST THE U.S. MED DEFTS, THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED.SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 5/23/13. 5/24/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES.(kw, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FREEDOM MEDICAL, INC. v. THOMAS R. GILLESPIE, III, et al. : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-3195 ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2013, upon consideration of the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Sandra “Dawn” Hall (Docket No. 567), the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants U.S. Med-Equip, Inc., Gregory Salario, and Gurmit Bhatia (collectively, the “U.S. Med Defendants”) (Docket No. 569), and the briefs in support of and opposition to those motions, and following oral argument held on March 14, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons stated in a memorandum bearing today’s date, that Ms. Hall’s motion is GRANTED and the U.S. Med Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 1. Judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of defendant Sandra “Dawn” Hall and against the plaintiff on all claims against her. The Clerk shall TERMINATE Ms. Hall as a defendant in this case. 2. Judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of all three of the U.S. Med Defendants and against the plaintiff on the claims brought against them under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint). 3. With respect to the state law claims asserted against the U.S. Med Defendants, their motion for summary judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mary A. McLaughlin MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?