HUTCHINSON v. CARCO GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT CARCO'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MOTION IS GRANTED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF COUNT I AND IS FURTHER GRANTED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF COUNT II'S CLAIM THAT CARCO NEGLIGENTLY V IOLATED 15 USC:1681D(D)(3). THE MOTION IS DENIED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF COUNT II'S CLAIM THAT CARCO NEGLIGENTLY VIOLATED 15 USC:1681E(B). THE GLOUCESTER COURT'S MOTION IS GRANTED. COUNT III IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE GLOUCESTER COURT IS DISMISSED AS A DEFENDANT TO THIS ACTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 9/29/15. 9/29/15 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEVIN HUTCHINSON
v.
CARCO GROUP, INC., ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-1570

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of the Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendant Carco Group, Inc. (“Carco”) (Docket No. 17), the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendant The County of Gloucester Virginia Circuit Court (the “Gloucester Court”)
(Docket No. 18), and Plaintiff Kevin Hutchinson’s responses to both Motions, and for the reasons
set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Carco’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion
is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count I and is further GRANTED
insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count II’s claim that Carco negligently violated 15
U.S.C. § 1681d(d)(3). The Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of
Count II’s claim that Carco negligently violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

2.

The Gloucester Court’s Motion is GRANTED. Count III is DISMISSED for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and the Gloucester Court is DISMISSED as a
Defendant to this action.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ John R. Padova, J.

John R. Padova, J.