BURRIS v. MAIN LINE HEALTH SYSTEM et al

Filing 42

ORDER: THAT 1. MAIN LINE HEALTH SYSTEM'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 22) AND SAINT CHARLES BORROMEO ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 20) ARE DENIED; 2. SAINT CHARLES BORROMEO ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARY& #039;S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 31) AND MAIN LINE HEALTH SYSTEM'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 38), WHICH SOUGHT TO SUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE ACCORDINGLY DEEMED MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 6/8/2017. 6/9/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (sme, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM BURRIS, Plaintiff, v. MAIN LINE HEALTH SYSTEM et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 16-0543 ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2017, upon consideration of Main Line Health System’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22), Saint Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Seminary’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20), Saint Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Seminary’s Motion to Supplement Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31), Main Line Health System’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), responses thereto, and oral argument, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Main Line Health System’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22) and Saint Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Seminary’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) are DENIED; 2. Saint Charles Borromeo Roman Catholic Seminary’s Motion to Supplement Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31) and Main Line Health System’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), which sought to supplement Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment are accordingly DEEMED MOOT. BY THE COURT: S/Gene E.K. Pratter GENE E.K. PRATTER United States District Judge

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?