Dolan et al v. PHL Variable Insurance Company et al
Filing
55
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs have 21 days to file an Amended Complaint; otherwise the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. See Order for specific details. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 11/22/16 (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TIMOTHY DOLAN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-01987
Plaintiffs,
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
v.
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
NOW, this 22 day of November, 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 15, 33, 45) Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) are
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
(a)
Count I alleging a violation of Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. § 201 is DISMISSED without prejudice
as failing to meet the particularity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
(b)
Count II alleging a breach of fiduciary duty claim is DISMISSED without
prejudice as failing to meet the particularity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b).
(c)
Count III alleging a negligence claim is DISMISSED without prejudice as
failing to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Plaintiffs have twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Order to file a an
Amended Complaint to properly plead their negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and
UTPCPL claims and to state their claims with respect to each Defendant insurance
company with the requisite specificity; otherwise, those claims, and the Complaint,
will be dismissed with prejudice.
nd
(1)
(2)
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge
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?