TELFORD BOROUGH AUTHORITY v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al, No. 2:2012cv06548 - Document 229 (E.D. Pa. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DENIED AS TO COUNT FIVE; DEFENDANTS MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNTS SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE AND THOSE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH P REJUDICE; DEFENDANTS MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNT THIRTEEN AND THAT CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER, PLAINTIFF MAY FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO CURE, IF IT CAN DO SO IN GOOD FAITH, THE DEFICIENCIES OUTLINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OPINION AS TO COUNT THIRTEEN.SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 4/27/23. 4/28/23 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO COUNSEL; E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
TELFORD BOROUGH AUTHORITY v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al Doc. 229 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TELFORD BOROUGH AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6548 ORDER AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2023, upon consideration of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 216), and Plaintiff’s response in opposition (ECF No. 217), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Count Five; 2. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Counts Six, Seven, Eight and Nine and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Count Thirteen and that claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date this Order, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint to cure, if it can do so in good faith, the deficiencies outlined in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion as to Count Thirteen. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J. Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.