MISKOVITCH v. JUDGE et al
ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION OT DISMISS IS GRANTED AS TO THE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFT. DIGUGLIELMO, AS HE WAS NOT ADDED AS A DEFT. WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED AS TO THE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFTS. ZIMME RMAN AND JUDGE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEFTS' RIGHT TO REASSERT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AFTER THE FACTUAL RECORD IS DEVELOPED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 4/30/12. 5/1/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC M. MISCOVITCH,
LT. JUDGE, et al.,
AND NOW, this 30th day of April 2012, upon review of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. No. 34], and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 38], and Defendants’ Reply
[Doc. No. 39, Ex. 1] and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the claims against Defendant
DiGuglielmo, as he was not added as a defendant within the applicable statute of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to the claims against Defendants
Zimmerman and Judge, without prejudice to Defendants’ right to reassert the
affirmative defenses of statute of limitation and failure to exhaust administrative
remedies after the factual record is developed.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
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?