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)

Download PDF
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

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?