BROOKS-CUNNINGHAM v. ER SOLUTIONS, INC.
Filing
63
ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 36 IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. ANY OUTSTANDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 8/6/13. 8/6/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURTNEY DOUGLASS,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-1524
v.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of August 2013, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 52),
Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of the Motion (Doc. No. 54), the arguments of counsel at
the hearing held on May 29, 2013, Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to the Motion
(Doc. No. 60), Defendant’s Response to the Sur-Reply in Further Support of the Motion (Doc.
No. 61), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED.
2.
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.
3.
Any outstanding motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/ s/ J oel H. S l om sk y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.
]]>
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?
