Patel v. Dhaduk

Filing 42

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry). (1) The Motion to Dismiss Defendants Counterclaims 29 is GRANTED. (2) Defendants Counterclaims I, II, III, and IV are DISMISSED with prejudice. (3) Defendants Counterclaim V for tortious interference is DISMISSED without prejudice to Defendant filing an amended answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Order to plead a plausible tortious interference claim. (4) Failure to timely file an amended answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims will result in the dismissal of the tortious interference claim with prejudice.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 9/5/19. (dw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUKESHKUMAR B. PATEL,

NO. 3:17-CV-02243

Plaintiff,
v.

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

VITHALBHAI D. DHADUK, a/k/a
VITHAL D. DHADUK,

Defendant.
ORDER
NOW, this 5th day of September, 2019, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

The Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED.

(2)

Defendant’s Counterclaims I, II, III, and IV are DISMISSED with
prejudice.

(3)

Defendant’s Counterclaim V for tortious interference is DISMISSED
without prejudice to Defendant filing an amended answer with
affirmative defenses and counterclaims within twenty-one (21)
days from the entry of this Order to plead a plausible tortious
interference claim.

(4)

Failure to timely file an amended answer with affirmative defenses
and counterclaims will result in the dismissal of the tortious
interference claim with prejudice.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge