MCCAFFREY v. WINDSOR AT WINDERMERE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT WWLP'S MOTION TO RENEW ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED REPLY, DKT. NO. 45, IS GRANTED; THE RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS BY WWLP AND WWIC, DKT. NO. 35, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: THE MOTION IS GRANTED TO THE EXT ENT THAT IT SEEKS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST WWIC. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST WWIC ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND THE MOTION IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEKS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST WWLP. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 11/15/17. 11/15/17 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WINDSOR AT WINDERMERE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.
AND NOW, this 15th
day of November, 2017, upon consideration of the renewed
motion to dismiss plaintiff Stepfanie McCaffrey’s second amended complaint for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by defendants
Windsor at Windermere Limited Partnership (WWLP) and Windsor at Windermere Investors
Corporation (WWIC), Dkt. No. 35, plaintiff’s original opposition and brief in opposition, Dkt.
Nos. 17 and 19, plaintiff’s renewed answer to WWLP and WWIC’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No.
42, defendant WWLP’s reply, Dkt. No. 21 and WWLP’s motion to renew its previously filed
reply Dkt. No. 45, and consistent with the accompanying memorandum of law, it is ORDERED
WWLP’s motion to renew its previously filed reply, Dkt. No. 45, is GRANTED;
the renewed motion to dismiss by WWLP and WWIC, Dkt. No. 35, is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
the motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss plaintiff’s
claims against WWIC. Plaintiff’s claims against WWIC are DISMISSED
without prejudice; and
the motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss plaintiff’s
claims against WWLP.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
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?