Eckert et al v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 776 Profit Sharing Plan et al

Filing 41

ORDER (Memorandum 40 filed previously as separate docket entry) DENYING defts' MSJ 31 & directing parties to meet & confer to devlop appropriate schedule for further proceedings & to submit joint proposed pretrial/trial schedule to ct by 4/3/17. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/13/17. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARIO ECKERT, ROBERT BAKER, STEVE BILLET, KEVIN BLOOM, JR., SHAWN CLARK, KAREN DIETZ, HERBERT C. GARBER, GISBEL GARCIA, JR., MARIO GAROFALO, BRADLEY HOCKENBERRY, MARTIN PARSON, and FRED WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 776 PROFIT SHARING PLAN, CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 776, EDGAR H. THOMPSON, and RONALD W. HICKS, Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-1920 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 31) for summary judgment filed by defendants, and the parties’ respective briefs in support of and opposition to said motion (Docs. 32, 35, 37), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The motion (Doc. 31) for summary judgment is DENIED. 2. The parties are directed to meet and confer with the goal of developing an appropriate schedule for further proceedings. On or before Monday, April 3, 2017, the parties shall submit a joint proposed pretrial and trial schedule to the court or, in the event the parties are unable to agree, shall submit individual proposed schedules for the court’s consideration. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania 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?