BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 OF PA/DE et al v. A.R.B. CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al

Filing 76

ORDER THAT EBS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. A HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR 4/21/2016 AT 2:00PM IN COURTROOM 4-B BEFORE THE HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 3/23/2016. 3/23/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED
:
CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 OF PA/DE,
:
et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
A.R.B. CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al.,
:
Defendants/
:
Third Party Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
ERNEST BOCK & SONS, INC.
:
Third-Party Defendant.
:
__________________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 13-3883

ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, upon consideration of “Ernest Bock & Sons,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing ARB’s Claim Against it with Prejudice and
Entering Judgment Against ARB” (Doc. No. 55), “Motion for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11” (Doc. No. 59), “Brief in Support of Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff A.R.B. Construction, Inc., et al.’s Response in Opposition to Third Party
Defendant Ernest Bock & Son’s Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing A.R.B.’s Claim
Against it with Prejudice and Entering Judgment Against A.R.B.” (Doc. No. 64), and “Reply
Brief in Support of Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 66),
and in accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1



Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc.’s (“EBS”) motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with
respect to liability.1



Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to
damages.

 A hearing is SCHEDULED for 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 21, 2016 in Courtroom
4-B. The parties should be prepared to (1) create a record on EBS’s request for damages
on its breach of contract claim and (2) present argument on EBS’s motion for sanctions
(Doc. No. 59.)

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
___________________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

1

In its motion for summary judgment, EBS stated that it is no longer pursuing an entry of
judgment against Ms. Harris personally. (EBS’ Br. p. 15.)
2