PENDERGRASS v. PENDERGRASS, II et al, No. 2:2018cv00478 - Document 112 (E.D. Pa. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 86 , 87 , 88 , 106 ) ARE GRANTED AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 89 ) IS DENIED. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 2/10/21. 2/11/21 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE; E-MAILED.(amas, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PENDERGRASS v. PENDERGRASS, II et al Doc. 112 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOAN PENDERGRASS Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-478 THEODORE PENDERGRASS, II, et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of February 2021, upon consideration of Defendants Robert Bacine and Jack Rounick’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Timothy Holman’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff Joan Pendergrass’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the responses and replies thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 86, 87, 88, 106] are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 89] is DENIED. The Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Cynthia M. Rufe CYNTHIA M. RUFE, 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.
