SOUROVELIS et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 203

ORDER THAT THE CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 158 IS DENIED. THE CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE 166 IS GRANTED. THE FJD DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 173 IS DENIED. THE FJD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE 180 IS GRA NTED. THE FJD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 179 IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY BRIEF 186 IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 03/30/2017. 03/30/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 14-4687 O R D E R AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of the Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim submitted by Defendants City of Philadelphia, Mayor James F. Kenney, and Police Commissioner Richard Ross, Jr. (“the City Defendants”) (ECF No. 158), and the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint submitted by Defendants the Honorable Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, the Honorable Jacqueline F. Allen, Joseph H. Evers, and Charles A. Mapp (“the FJD Defendants”) (ECF No. 173), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 158) is DENIED. 2. The City Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (ECF No. 166) is GRANTED. 3. The FJD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 173) is DENIED. 4. The FJD Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (ECF No. 180) is GRANTED. The FJD Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (ECF No. 179) is DENIED as moot. 5. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Brief (ECF No. 186) is GRANTED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Eduardo C. Robreno EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

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?