THOMAS, et al., v. STRYDEN, INC.

Filing 229

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IN SO FAR AS DEFENDANT MOVES TO DISMISS COUNT I OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT THE MOTION IS GRANTED. COUNT I OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. IN SO FAR AS D EFENDANTS MOVES TO DISMISS COUNT II OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED. IN SO FAR AS DEFENDANT MOVES TO DISMISS COUNT III OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE MOTION IS GRANTED. COUNT III OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 5/25/2016. 5/26/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS AND PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CORNELIUS A. BADGER, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STRYDEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
2:09-CV-3619-CDJ

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant Stryden’s
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, (Dkt No. 192), and Plaintiffs’ Response in
Opposition filed by Donald Thomas, Mikail Abdul Karim, James Horton, and Goldie
Hemmingway, (Dkt No. 200), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. In so far as Defendant Moves to Dismiss Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the
Motion is GRANTED. Count I of the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
2. In so far as Defendant Moves to Dismiss Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, the
Motion is DENIED.
3. In so far as Defendant Moves to Dismiss Count III of the Second Amended Complaint,
the Motion is GRANTED. Count III of the Second Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II
C. DARNELL JONES, II

J.