MIKHAIL v. AEROSEAL, LLC et al
ORDER THAT AEROSEAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT & AS TO THE THIRD COUNT OF THE COUNTERCLAIM (ECF NO. 49) IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART, ETC. SEQUENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLFF FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 51) IS DENIED; & PLFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 52) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 5/3/16. 5/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMI MIKHAIL ,
AEROSEAL, LLC and SEQUENT, INC.,
AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant Aeroseal,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment As to All Claims in the Amended Complaint and as to the
Third Count of the Counterclaim (ECF No. 49); Defendant Sequent, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Failure to Cooperate in Discovery (ECF No.
51); and Plaintiff Rami Mikhail’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to His Wage Payment and
Collection Law Claim As It Pertains to Unpaid Vacation (ECF No. 52); and the various
responses in opposition to each motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Aeroseal’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a. the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s claims in Count I (Fair Labor Standards
Act), Count IV (Misrepresentation/Fraud), and Count V (Unjust Enrichment) is
GRANTED and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendant
Aeroseal on those Counts;
b. the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s claims in Count II (Pennsylvania’s Wage
Payment and Collection Law) and Count III (breach of contract) is DENIED;
c. the motion with respect to Aeroseal’s counterclaim for conversion is GRANTED
and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant Aeroseal on those
(2) Sequent’s motion is DENIED; and,
(3) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
WENDY BEETLESTONE, 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?