DAVID et al v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al
Filing
162
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED: IN VIEW OF THE DISMISSAL, THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS MOOT: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED COLLECTIVE ACTION NOTIFICATION; AND, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDI TED HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED NOTICE TO AFFECTED EMPLOYEES; AND, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY NON-FLSA CLAIMS; AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS. THE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 9/8/11. 9/8/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
COLLETTE DAVIS, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
v.
:
CIVIL NO. 09-cv-5520
:
ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., :
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of September 2011, upon consideration of this Court’s attached
Memorandum Opinion and Order, and for the reasons stated therein and hereby incorporated, it is
hereby ORDERED:
1)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED [doc. no. 132]; and
2)
In view of the dismissal, the following motions are DENIED AS MOOT:
a)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Collective Action Notification [doc. no.
102];1 and,
b)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Expedited Notice to Affected Employees [doc. no. 105]; and,
c)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Non-FLSA claims [doc. no. 136]; and
d)
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third-Party Subpoenas [doc.
no. 94].
3)
The Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend is GRANTED. The plaintiffs have
thirty days to file a second amended complaint
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
1
This motion was improperly docketed as a “Motion to Certify.”
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?