THOMPSON v. MED-MIZER, INC. et al, No. 5:2010cv02058 - Document 21 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS MED-MIZER, INC. AND LINAK U.S. INC. ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL ON OR BEFORE 4/15/11 TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/18/11. 3/21/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )

Download PDF
THOMPSON v. MED-MIZER, INC. et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES H. THOMPSON, Plaintiff vs. MED-MIZER, INC., and LINAK U.S., INC., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-cv-2058 O R D E R NOW, this 18th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents: (1) Motion of Moving Defendant Med-Mizer, Inc. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to Dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint, which motion was filed August 30, 2010; (2) Defendant, Linak U.S., Inc. s, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which motion was filed August 31, 2010; and (3) Plaintiff s Reply to Motions to Dismiss by Med-Mizer, Inc. and by Linak U.S., Inc., which reply was filed September 29, 2010; and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that each motion is granted in part in denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each motion in the nature of a motion to dismiss the negligence claim alleged in Count One of plaintiff s Amended Complaint is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count One of plaintiff s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff to Dockets.Justia.com re-plead his negligence claim in accordance with the accompanying Opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects, each motion to dismiss is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until on or before April 15, 2011 to file a second amended complaint in accordance with the accompanying Opinion. BY THE COURT: /s/ James Knoll Gardner James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge -ii-

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.