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.