ROBERTSHAW v. PUDLES et al

Filing 117

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT PUDLES'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 95) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ANSWERNET'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 94) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THA T BABJAK'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 104) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: ROBERTSHAW'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST BABJAK IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; BABJAK'S MOTION IS DENIED AS TO THE FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS AGAINST HER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 3/20/2013. 3/20/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ems)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA ROBERTSHAW
v.
GARY PUDLES, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-7353

ORDER
AND NOW this 20th day of March, 2013, it is ORDERED that Pudles’s motion to
dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 95) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Answernet’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt.
No. 94) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Babjak’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt.
No. 104) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Robertshaw’s
negligence claim against Babjak is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Bajak’s motion is
DENIED as to the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against her.
On or before March 27, 2013 counsel and Mr. Pudles should notify the Court by letter the
estimated length of the trial of this case and their trial attachments, if any, for the next three
months. The Court will attempt to set a trial date for this matter as soon as practicable.
If the parties believe a settlement conference would be productive they should contact my
deputy Mr. Charles Ervin (267-299-7559) promptly.

__/s/ Thomas N. O’Neill _____
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.