REINHART et al v. PNC BANK NA et al

Filing 38

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT THE BOROUGH OF EPHRATA'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED. COUNT VII OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO AMEND COUNT VIII OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPL AINT ON OR BEFORE 5/2/2012. DEFENDANTS POLICE OFFICERS' MOTION TO DISMISS WILL BE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: COUNT VI OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT VII OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 4/2/12. 4/3/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NICHOLAS REINHART, ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:

v.
PNC BANK, NA, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-7384

ORDER

AND NOW this

2nd

day of

April

, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant the

Borough of Ephrata’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 4), and Defendants
Police Officers Bright, O’Hanlon and Martin’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 32),
and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1.

Defendant the Borough of Ephrata’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Count
VIII of the Amended Complaint is dismissed.

2.

Plaintiffs’ request to amend Count VIII of the Amended Complaint is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before May 2,
2012.

3.

Defendants Police Officers’ Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
A.

Count VI of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

B.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count VII of the Amended Complaint is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

________________________
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

2