DAVID et al v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al
ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFFS' FEDERAL CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE COURT DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE REMAINING STATE-LAW CLAIMS WHICH ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE REA SSERTION OF THESE CLAIMS IN STATE COURT TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFFS CAN DO SO CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULINGS. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 8/7/12. 8/8/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., :
COLLETTE DAVIS, et al.,
AND NOW, this 7th day of August 2012, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 182), Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition thereto
(Doc. No. 188), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. No. 193), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion
filed this day, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions are GRANTED as follows:
Plaintiffs’ federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law
claims which are DISMISSED without prejudice to the reassertion of these claims
in state court to the extent Plaintiffs can do so consistent with the Court’s rulings.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
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?