WALKER v. INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC. et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. NO. 10) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S SUA SPONTE REVIEW, THE MATTER IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON RIPENESS GROUNDS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 7/8/2013. 7/8/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
LYNETTE WALKER,
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 12-6488
:
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS,
:
INC. & JEREMY CROSS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this

8th

day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 10) filed by Defendants, International Recovery Systems, Inc.
and Jeremy Cross, against Plaintiff, Lynette Walker, and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition
thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that
pursuant to this Court’s sua sponte review, the matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE on ripeness grounds.1
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Robert F. Kelly
ROBERT F. KELLY
SENIOR JUDGE

1

Considerations of ripeness are sufficiently important that the court must raise the issue sua
sponte when the parties do not. Nextel Commc’ns of the Mid-Atlantic Inc. v. City of Margate, 305 F.3d
188, 192 (3d Cir. 2002); Felmeister v. Office of Attorney Ethics, 856 F.2d 529, 535 (3d Cir. 1988).