LIFEWATCH SERVICES, INC. v. HIGHMARK, INC. et al

Filing 113

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 95 IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 90 IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED RESPONSE 101 , DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE 102 , DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 108 , AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 109 ARE ALL DENIED AS MOOT, ETC. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 04/03/2017. 04/03/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIFEWATCH SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HIGHMARK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-5146

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2017, upon
consideration of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (ECF No.
90), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 95), Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint and Proposed Amended Response (ECF Nos. 101, 101-1),
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss and Proposed Reply (ECF Nos. 102, 102-1),
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental
Authority and Proposed Notice (ECF Nos. 108, 108-1), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority and
Proposed Notice (ECF Nos. 109, 109-1), and following a hearing
held on the record with counsel for both parties on December 19,
2016, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 90)

is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Response in

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 101), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102), Defendants’
Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF
No. 108), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Notice of
Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 109) are all DENIED as moot.1
4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case

as CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

1

The Court considered the contents of Plaintiff’s
Proposed Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 101-1), Defendants’ Proposed Reply (ECF No.
102-1), Defendants’ Proposed Notice of Supplemental Authority
(ECF No. 108-1), and Plaintiff’s Proposed Notice of Supplemental
Authority (ECF No. 109-1) in deciding Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 95).
2