SMITH v. WENEROWICZ et al

Filing 54

ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 41, 42, AND 46) ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFTS' MOTIONS ARE DENIED ONLY INSOFAR AS PLFF. HAS STATED A CLAIM FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE AGAINST DEFTS. MICHA EL WENEROWICZ, JAMES MISSTISHIN SR., AND CHRISTOPHER H. OPPMAN. ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 6/22/17. 6/23/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KARRIE SMITH, Plaintiff, : : : v. : : MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, et al., : Defendants. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1845 ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2017, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 41, 42, and 46), Plaintiff’s responses thereto (Dkt No. 43, 47, and 48), and counsels’ oral arguments presented on June 19, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ motions are denied only insofar as Plaintiff has stated a claim for deliberate indifference to asbestos exposure against Defendants Michael Wenerowicz, James Misstishin Sr., and Christopher H. Oppman. All other claims and defendants are dismissed for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum. BY THE COURT: /s/ C. Darnell Jones, II C. Darnell Jones, II 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?