NOVA DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. v. WALTERS et al
Filing
72
ORDER THAT THE DEFTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED; AND THE PLFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE PLFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFTS PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC., AND RIC INVESTMENTS, LLC. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 10/24/11. ) 10/25/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, ) Modified on 10/25/2011 (gn, ).
<![CDATA[
IK THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PEN~SYLVANIA
NOVA DESIGN TECt<:NOLOGIES I
CIVIL AC':'ION
~TD,
v,
MATTHEW K,
\\'ALTERS,
et al.
NO.
10-7616
"H. IE fJ
GCI ~ d 2QIl
QRDER
~.. ..... 1\....,,,_. ....ierk
k'ID NO\v,
this 24th day of October,
cot:sideration of the Renewed
~'~otion 1:.0
_Vt'Jp. :..'k;rk,
2012., up'c::
•.
Dismis5 Defenda:1ts Philips
Holding USA, Inc. and RIC Investmen::s, Ll.,C {Docket No. 59)
I
t::he
plaintiff's response thereto, the defendants' brief in reply, the
pla~ntiff's
Motion for Leave
the defendants' response
~o
File a
~heretof
SU~
Reply (Docket No. 68),
ar.d for the reasons set forth
in a memorandum of law bearing coday's date, ,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1,
The defendants' Renewed Motion to Jismiss is
GRi\N";ED;
2.
and
The plair.tiff's Motion for Leave to Pile a SurReply is GRANTED in part and :JSNIED in part.
I'he plai:1::i ff 's motier;. is gran::ed to the extent that
the Court cons:"'dered the proposed contents of the brief in sur
reply in ruling on the de=endants' wotion.
The plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with
lnespect to the de::endants Phi lips Hcld=-ng USA,
Ir:c. and RIC'
Investments, LLC.
BY TIiE COURT,
}1I/1,.A. Yk~.
~CLAUGHLINI J.t
]]>
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?
