MEADOWS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
Filing
31
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 , IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANTS' MOTION WITH RESPECT TO COUNT I IS GRANTED AND PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS' MOTION WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS IV AND V IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 1/31/17. 1/31/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES R. MEADOWS
v.
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-2074
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the partial motion to
dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 23, by defendants, Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and SEPTA Police Officers Edward Kaiser and
Troy Parham, Dkt. No. 27, and plaintiff James Meadows’s response, Dkt. No. 29, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1.
Defendants’ motion with respect to Count I is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claim is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
2.
Defendants’ motion with respect to Counts IV and V is DENIED.
s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., 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?