MERCED v. GEMSTAR GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 55

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 30, 31, 32), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE MARGRAF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 11/28/11. 11/30/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREPS AND E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS MERCED
Plaintiff,
v.
GEMSTAR GROUP, INC. ,
ET AL.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-3054

ORDER
AND NOW, this _____ day of November, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants' Margraf,
S.P.A., Margraf Tiles, S.R.L., and Linea Marmo, S.P.A ("Margraf Defendants", collectively) Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. 30, 31, 32), Defendant Gemstar Canada Inc.'s Response (Doc. 37), Defendant Zim Integrated
Shipping Services, Ltd.'s Response (Doc. 38), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 39), Defendants' SDS Global
Logistics, Inc. and Security Delivery Service, Inc. Response (Doc. 44), and the Margraf Defendants' Reply
(Doc. 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Margraf Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
are DENIED.1

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

1

This order accompanies the Court’s memorandum, dated November __, 2011.