Clarke et al v. Sabre Manufacturing et al
Filing
80
ORDER (Memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry ECF No. 79) -(1) The motion to dismiss of defendant Team Services (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count I of Sabre Manufacturing's third-party complaint (indemnifica tion) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (2) The motion to dismiss of Abilities Education Technologies (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count III of Sabre Manufacturing's third-party complaint (indemnification) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (3) The motion to dismiss of Bert Klapec (ECF No. 73) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/12/13. (km)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE CLARKE and TINA M.
CLARKE,
:
:
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
v.
:
:
SABRE MANUFACTURING, LLC, :
JOMAR INVESTMENTS, INC. t/a :
NEW LIFE TRANSPORT PARTS :
CENTER, INC., and ADLER TANK :
RENTALS, LLC,
:
:
Defendants
:
:
v.
:
:
TEAM SERVICES, LLC, KIMBER :
TYSON, and ABILITIES
:
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES,
:
INC.,
:
:
Third-party Defendants
:
:
v.
:
:
BERT KLAPEC, INC.,
:
:
Third-party Defendant.
:
Case No. 4:11-cv-02165
(Judge Brann)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED, in
accordance with the memorandum of this same date, that:
1.
The motion to dismiss of defendant Team Services (ECF No. 47) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count I of Sabre
Manufacturing’s third-party complaint (indemnification) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2.
The motion to dismiss of Abilities Education Technologies (ECF No.
60) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count III of
Sabre Manufacturing’s third-party complaint (indemnification) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3.
The motion to dismiss of Bert Klapec (ECF No. 73) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
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?