SOMERS v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating as follows: Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled and the 36 Report and Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; Defendant's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation; and the Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed. See Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by Judge W. Scott Hardy on 1/7/22. (lwp)
Case 2:20-cv-00704-WSH-CRE Document 39 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRUCE SOMERS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Civil Action No. 20-704
District Judge W. Scott Hardy
Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket No. 37) to the Report
& Recommendation (“R&R”) (Docket No. 36) of Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy,
entered on July 8, 2021. The R&R recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 23), filed on March 31, 2021. Service of the R&R was made on all parties.
On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the R&R, to which Defendant filed a
Response on July 27, 2021. (Docket Nos. 37, 38). Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that
the Court dismiss all of the claims in his Complaint, including claims brought under Pennsylvania
law for breach of contract, violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43
P.S. § 260.1 et seq. (“WPCL”), and unjust enrichment. (Docket No. 1-2).
According to Plaintiff, the Court should reject the recommendation that Plaintiff’s breach
of contract claim be dismissed primarily because such recommendation is based on an erroneous
finding that a contract did not exist between the parties (and a flawed conclusion that even if
Case 2:20-cv-00704-WSH-CRE Document 39 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff did establish the existence of a contract, Plaintiff was paid what he was owed). Plaintiff
also argues that the recommendation that Plaintiff’s WPCL claim be dismissed – which is based
on the erroneous finding that no contract existed here – should likewise be rejected. Finally,
Plaintiff contends that the recommendation that his unjust enrichment claim be dismissed should
also be rejected because such recommendation was based upon the faulty premise that Defendant’s
obligation to Plaintiff was satisfied.
In resolving a party’s objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of any part of the
R&R that has been properly objected to. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, as well as receive further
evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See id. Upon careful de
novo review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the parties’
briefs filed in connection with the Motion, the R&R, Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R, and
Defendant’s Response thereto, the Court concludes that the Objections do not undermine the
R&R’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2022,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Docket No. 37) are
OVERRULED, and the R&R (Docket No. 36) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
No. 23) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
Case 2:20-cv-00704-WSH-CRE Document 39 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3
s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record
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?