THE BROOKS GROUP & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. LEVIGNE et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE BROOKS GROUP'S MOTION (DOC. NO.58) IS GRANTED AS TO DEFENDANTS' UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM ARE DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; PAUL BROOKS'S MOTION (DOC. NO.90) IS GRANTED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AND DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; DEFENDANTS' MOTION (DOC. NO.55) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS TO COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT AS STATED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OPINION, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 4/15/2014. 4/16/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED (kk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE BROOKS GROUP &
WENDI LEVIGNE, et al.,
AND NOW, this 15th day of April 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s, Defendants’,
and Third-Party Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment and responses thereto, for the
reasons in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Brooks Group’s Motion (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED as to Defendants’ unjust
enrichment claim (Count II of the Amended Counterclaim) and the constitutional invasion of
privacy claim (Count VI of the Amended Counterclaim) and DENIED in all other respects;
2. Paul Brooks’s Motion (Doc. No. 90) is GRANTED as to the constitutional invasion of
privacy claim (Count III of the Third Party Complaint) and DENIED in all other respects;
3. Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 55) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to
Count I of the Complaint as stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. Defendants’
motion is DENIED as to Counts I and II of Defendants’ Counterclaims. Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED in all other respects;
4. Within 21 days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall inform the Court in writing
whether the case is settled. In the event the case is not settled, counsel shall include in their
report a statement as to whether they believe a settlement conference before a magistrate judge,
mediation under Local Civil Rule 53.3, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution
might be of assistance in resolving the case and, if so, on what form of alternative dispute
resolution they agree and by what date they will be prepared to commence such proceedings.
If the parties do not wish to engage in alternative dispute resolution, they shall provide
the Court with a joint proposed schedule for trial on the remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
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?