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, )

Download PDF
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?