WALKER v. BLACKMER PUMP CO. et al

Filing 63

ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 17 ) IS DENIED. DEFENDANT WARREN PUMPS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 18 ) IS DENIED. DEFENDANT BLACKMER PUMP CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 22 ) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 2/14/2019. 2/14/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OBEDIAH WALKER III, As Executor of the
Estate of Obediah Walker, Jr.
MDL 875

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-5349

v.
BLACKMER PUMP CO., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of February 2019, upon consideration of Defendants IngersollCompany, Warren Pumps, and Blackmer Pump Co.’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos.
17, 18, 22), Plaintiff’s Responses in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions (Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 25),
the arguments of counsel for the parties at the hearing held on February 28, 2018, and in
accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) is
DENIED.
2. Defendant Warren Pumps’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED.
3. Defendant Blackmer Pump Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22) is
DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/ s/ J oel H. S l om sk y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.