CURRY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 10) IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 20 & 21) ARE GRANTED AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 16) IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 8/30/17. 8/30/17 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al.,
AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2017, after consideration of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 10), Defendants’ Responses, (ECF Nos. 17 & 18), and
Plaintiff’s Reply, (ECF No. 19), it is ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 10), is DENIED;
2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 20 & 21), are GRANTED and the
Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 16), is DISMISSED with prejudice.5
3. This case shall be CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.
In his Reply brief in support of his Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 19), and at oral argument,
(Tr. of Hr’g, at 36:2–9), Plaintiff conceded that should the Court deny his Motion to Remand and hold
that the LMRA preempts his state law cause of action, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed
because claims under the LMRA are barred by its six-month statute of limitations. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(b); DelCostello v. International Broth. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 155 (1983); Vadino v. A.
Valey Eng’rs, 903 F.2d 253, 260 (3d Cir. 1990).
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?