MARTINEZ v. FUDEMAN
Filing
49
OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOC. NO. 22, IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT READING AREA WATER AUTHORITY AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOC. NO. 25, IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT I S ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, CITY OF READING PROPERTY MAINTENAINCE DIVISION AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE FILED BY THE PARTIES (DOC. NOS. 33, 34, 35, 36, AND 37) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 9/29/17. 9/29/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GILBERT M. MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF READING PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE DIVISION, READING
AREA WATER AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1290
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2017, after considering the motions for
summary judgment separately filed by the defendants, City of Reading Property Maintenance
Division and Reading Area Water Authority (Doc. Nos. 22, 25); and after considering the
defendants’ statements of undisputed material facts, supporting briefs, and attached exhibits
(Doc. Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26); and after considering the response to the motions for summary
judgment and the exhibits attached thereto filed by the pro se plaintiff, Gilbert M. Martinez; and
after hearing oral argument from the parties on April 25, 2017; and for the reasons set forth in
the separately filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
The motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Reading Area Water
Authority (Doc. No. 22), is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor of the defendant,
Reading Area Water Authority, and against the plaintiff, Gilbert M. Martinez;
2.
The motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, City of Reading
Property Maintenance Division (Doc. No. 25), is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor
of the defendant, City of Reading Property Maintenance Division, and against the plaintiff,
Gilbert M. Martinez;
3.
The motions in limine filed by the parties (Doc. Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37) are
DENIED AS MOOT; and
4.
The clerk of court shall mark this matter as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
2
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?