CLASSEN v. NUTTER et al
ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS ONE (1) AND FOUR (4) (DOC. NO. 52) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS ON COUNTS ONE (1), TWO(2), THREE(3), FOUR(4) AND SIX(6) (DOC. NO. 51) IS GRATNED; COUNT FIVE IS DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT SIX (6) (DOC. NO. 53) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 12/4/17. 12/5/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL NUTTER, et al.
AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2017 for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
(1) the motion of defendants City of Philadelphia,
Louis Giorla, Michael R. Resnick, Blanche Carney, and Karen
Bryant for summary judgment on Counts One and Four (Doc. # 52)
(2) the motion of defendant Corizon Health for summary
judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Six (Doc. # 51) is
(3) Count Five is DISMISSED as moot; and
(4) the motion of defendant Aramark Corporation (a/k/a
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC) for summary judgment on
Count Six (Doc. # 53) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Harvey Bartle III
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?