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, )
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?