GOLON v. HAIRE MACHINE CORPORATION
Filing
37
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS REMAND; THE MOTION IS DENIED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS; ANY OUTSTANDING MOTIONS IN THIS ACTION ARE DENIED AS MOOT; AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CO MMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMAND TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THIS CASE. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 7/9/18. 7/10/18 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ASHLEY GOLON,
Plaintiff
vs.
HAIRE MACHINE CORPORATION
d/b/a HAIRE GROUP, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 18-01023
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2018, upon consideration of the plaintiff’s
motion to remand (Doc. No. 7), and the defendants’ responses (Doc. Nos. 8, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 25), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks remand;
2. The motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks attorney’s fees and costs;
3. Any outstanding motions in this action are DENIED as moot; and
4. This case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand to the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County all original documents to this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, C.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?