BERKERY v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al

Filing 39

ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED. IF FACTS EXIST TO SUPPORT A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, PLFF MAY AMEND HIS COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, ETC. DEFTS' REQUEST TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS DENIED AS MOOT, ETC. PLFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 10/29/15. 10/30/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF.(kw, )

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

JOHN C. BERKERY SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
et. al,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

MCHUGH, J.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 2:15-cv-1085

OCTOBER 29, 2015
ORDER

This 29th day of October, 2015, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum
Opinion, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. If facts exist to support a plausible
claim for relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Count Six), Plaintiff may amend his
Complaint without leave of Court within 21 days of the entry of this Order. Plaintiff does not
have leave to amend any of the remaining Counts, as it appears that amendment would be futile.
Defendants’ request to compel arbitration is DENIED AS MOOT, subject to renewal by
Defendants should Plaintiff successfully amend Count Six of his Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss. Although titled a “Motion to Strike,” the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion
serves as a sur-reply to the Motion to Dismiss, as it contains additional arguments to buttress
Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion. Because none of the arguments in Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike serve to cure the legal deficiencies identified in my foregoing analysis,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Court Judge