NIEMOCZYNSKI et al v. UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 30

ORDER THAT THE TOWNSHIP DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; THE APONICKS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH RESPECT TO ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE TOWNSHIP DEFENDANTS AND FRAN APONICK; AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ROBERT APONICK ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFFS HAVE TWENTY (20) DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 1/23/17. 1/24/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEON NIEMOCZYNSKI, JR., and NALINA NIEMOCZYNSKI, Plaintiffs, v. UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0212 ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Upper Mount Bethel Township, Upper Mount Bethel Township Zoning Board, Robert Cartwright, Maureen Sterner, Robert Collura, Jeffrey Manzi, and Ronald Angle (“the Township Defendants”) (Docket No. 19) and Robert and Fran Aponick (Docket Nos. 15, 16, and 17); the Responses in Opposition by Plaintiffs Leon and Nalina Niemoczynski (Docket Nos. 20 and 21); the Township Defendants’ Reply (Docket No. 24); and Plaintiffs’ Sur Reply (Docket No. 27), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Township Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 2. The Aponicks’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to all claims against the Township Defendants and Fran Aponick; and 4. All claims against Robert Aponick are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. Plaintiffs have twenty (20) days in which to file an Amended Complaint. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

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?