STANTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 16

ORDERED THAT (DOCKET NO. 4) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S COUNTERCLAIM AND (DOCKET NO. 6) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S COUNTERCLAIMS ARE DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE FOREGOING MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 2/28/11. 3/1/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rab, )

STANTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Doc. 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH STANTON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : : ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of February 2011, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of Philadelphia's Counterclaim (Docket No. 4), the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia's Counterclaims (Docket No. 6), the Response of Defendant City of Philadelphia to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of Philadelphia's Counterclaim (Docket No. 8), and The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the RDA's Counterclaim (Docket Nos. 8 and 10), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions (Docket Nos. 4 and 6) are DENIED. CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-2726

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter GENE E.K. PRATTER United States District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com