DUNKIN' DONUTS FRANCHISED RESTAURANTS, LLC et al v. CLAUDIA I, LLC et al

Filing 89

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS (#83) IS DENIED; PLAINTIFFS' AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#6 7) IS GRANTED AS TO COUNTS I, II, IV, VI AND VIII; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ALSO GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT SPRING HILL REALTY, INC. AS TO COUNTS I AND II; PLAINTIFFS' AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#67) IS DENIED AS TO COUNTS III AND V; COUNTS I, II, IV, VI AND VIII ARE DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AND THE CASE IS RE-REFERRED TO THE HON. HENRY S. PERKIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/10/14. 2/10/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DUNKIN’ DONUTS FRANCHISED
RESTAURANTS, LLC, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLAUDIA I, LLC, et. al
Defendants;
and
CLAUDIA I, LLC, et. al.
Third Party Plaintiffs
v.
SPRING HILL REALTY, INC., et. al.
Third Party Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action 12-2010

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of February 2014, upon consideration of plaintiffs’ and
third party defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 67), and defendants’ and
Spring Hill Realty’s response thereto (doc. nos. 73 and 77);
AND upon consideration of plaintiffs’ and third party defendant’s motion to strike
opposition to plaintiff’s statement of material facts (doc. no. 83) and defendants’ response
thereto (doc. no. 84);
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1.

Plaintiffs’ and third party defendant’s motion to strike opposition to

plaintiff’s statement of material facts (doc. no. 83) is DENIED;
2.

Plaintiffs’ and third party defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc.

no. 67) is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, IV, VI and VIII;
3.

Summary judgment is also GRANTED in favor of third party defendant

Spring Hill Realty, Inc. as to Counts I and II;
4.

Plaintiffs’ and third party defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc.

no. 67) is DENIED as to Counts III and V;
5.

Counts I, II, IV, VI and VIII are DISMISSED in their entirety; and

6.

The case is re-referred to the Honorable Henry S. Perkin for the purpose of

conducting a settlement conference.
BY THE COURT
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

2