DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK et al v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.

Filing 59

JUDGMENT ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. COUNTS 1 AND 2 OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 4/16/20. 4/16/20 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.

Case 2:18-cv-02447-PD Document 59 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER
NETWORK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 18-2447

JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2020, for the reasons provided in my Memorandum
Opinion (Doc. No. 58), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45) is GRANTED;

2.

Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) are DISMISSED

with prejudice. Insofar as the Amended Complaint includes any state law claim—and it is by
no means clear that it does—I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3); see Born v. Aberdeen Police Dep’t, 397 F. App’x 801, 802 (3d Cir. 2010);
3.

JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs;

4.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED;

5.

Defendant’s Motion in limine (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED as moot; and

6.

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul S. Diamond
_________________________
Paul S. Diamond, J.