NEIFERT, ET AL v. READING HOSPITAL, No. 5:2013cv05927 - Document 123 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE TWENTY-ONE OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS ARE REMOVED FROM THIS CASE, AND THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ARE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION, WHICH WILL PROCEED ON BEHALF OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFF SUSAN BELL ONLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 7/19/16. 7/19/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Susan Bell, on her own behalf and for all others similarly situated ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs v. THE READING HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER Defendant Civil Action No. 13-cv-05927 O R D E R NOW, this day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the following documents: 1) Defendant Reading Hospital’s Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action, which motion was filed April 25, 2016 (“Motion to Decertify”) (Document 102), together with (a) Defendant Reading Hospital’s Brief in Support of its Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action (Document 102-1); and (b) Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Document 102-2); 2) Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts and Plaintiff’s Affirmative Statement of Facts, filed together in one document on May 20, 2016 (Document 108); 3) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Decertify, which opposition was filed May 24, 2016 (Document 109); together with (a) Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Decertify (Document 109-1); 4) Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Affirmative Statement of Facts, which response was filed May 26, 2016 (Document 110); and 5) Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action, which reply was filed June 2, 2016 (Document 113); and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Decertify is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the twenty-one opt-in plaintiffs are removed from this case, and their claims against defendant are dismissed from this action, which will proceed on behalf of the named plaintiff Susan Bell only. BY THE COURT: ___________________________ 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.
