CREGHAN v. PROCURA MANAGEMENT, INC.

Filing 53

ORDER THAT THE COURT WILL DENY CREGHAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PROCURA'S COUNTERCLAIM. THE COURT WILL GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PROCURA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE CLERK SHALL TRANSFER THIS CASE TO THE COURT'S CIVIL SUSPENSE DOCKET PENDING THE COURT'S REVIEW OF THE PARTIES SUBMISSION; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE STEWART DALZELL ON 3/9/15. 3/9/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL CREGHAN
v.
PROCURA MANAGEMENT, INC.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 14-1847

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff Michael
Creghan’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim (docket entry # 46) and
defendant Procura Management, Inc.’s (“Procura”) response thereto (docket entry # 48), as well
as Procura’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment
(docket entry # 47) and Creghan’s opposition thereto (docket entry # 49) and the parties’
respective replies (docket entries ## 50 and 51), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Procura’s counterclaim concerning

the non-disclosure/non-solicitation agreement is DENIED;
2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for negligence,

promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection law is GRANTED;
3.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s breach of contract

claim is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s claims arising from the Consolidated Services Group, Geico
New York and Horizon Casualty Services accounts;
4.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s breach of contract

claim is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s claims arising from the New Jersey Manufacturers
Insurance Company, Selective Insurance and Premier Prizm Solutions accounts;

5.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim for post-

termination commissions is DENIED;
6.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim for

commissions on revenue generated by Procura’s partnership with Mitchell International is
DENIED;
7.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for

commissions on revenue generated by Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. and New Jersey
Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association is GRANTED;
8.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for

commissions on revenue generated by Decision Point Review Plan accounts is GRANTED;
9.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for

commissions as to Allstate Insurance is DENIED;
10.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claims for

commissions after March of 2008 pursuant to Pennsylvania’s four-year statute of limitations, is
DENIED; and
11.

By noon on March 19, 2015, the parties shall SUBMIT their calculus of the

damages remaining in controversy and the Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the Court's Civil
Suspense docket pending the Court's review of the parties' submissions.
BY THE COURT:

_/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J.
Stewart Dalzell, J.

2