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, )
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?