BECKER v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. et al
Filing
137
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER I IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT III OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER I ARE DENIED. P LAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER II IS GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART, AND DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER II IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S A ND DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT III OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER II ARE DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT BNYM'S COUNTERCLAIM [#48] IS GRANTED, IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFE NDANTS. DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE COUNTERCLAIM IS DENIED. THE COUNTERCLAIM IS DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV, AND V OF THE COMPLAINT IN BECKER II, AND DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE COMPLAINT'S DEMAND IN BECKER II FOR EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ARE DENIED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS RESPECTFULLY DIRECTED TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#125], DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#126], AND DEFENDANT BNYM'S COUNTERCLAIM [#48], FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 3/23/16. 3/23/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEONARD BECKER
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. and J.P. MORGAN TRUST
COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-6460
(Consolidated with No. 12-6412)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, upon consideration of the Motion for
Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Leonard Becker (Doc. No. 125), and the Motion for Summary
Judgment of Defendants The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (ABNYM@) and
J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association (Doc. No. 126), and upon consideration of the
parties= moving papers in this consolidated litigation, 1 it is hereby ORDERED, consistent with
the rulings in the accompanying Memorandum, specifically as follows:
1. Defendants= motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Complaint in
Becker I is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff=s and Defendants= cross-motions for summary judgment on Count III
of the Complaint in Becker I are DENIED.
3. Plaintiff=s motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Complaint in
Becker II is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, and Defendants=
cross-motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Complaint in Becker II is
DENIED.
4. Plaintiff=s and Defendants= cross-motions for summary judgment on Count III
of the Complaint in Becker II are DENIED.
5. Plaintiff=s motion for summary judgment on Defendant BNYM=s
1
By Order, dated March 18, 2013 (Doc. No. 64), two actions were consolidated: Becker v. The
Bank New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., and J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association,
No. 11-6460 (ABecker I@) and Becker v. New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., No. 12-6412 (ABecker
II@).
Counterclaim (Doc. No. 48) is GRANTED, in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendants. Defendants= cross-motion for summary judgment on the
Counterclaim is DENIED. The Counterclaim is DISMISSED in its entirety, with
prejudice.
6. Defendants= motions for summary judgment on Counts II, IV, and V of the
Complaint in Becker II, and Defendants= request for summary judgment on the
Complaint=s demand in Becker II for exemplary and punitive damages, are
DENIED.
The CLERK OF COURT is respectfully DIRECTED to TERMINATE Plaintiff=s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 125), Defendants= Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
126), and Defendant BNYM=s Counterclaim (Doc. No. 48), for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Legrome D. Davis
Legrome D. Davis, J.
2
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?