SCHWARTZ et al v. ACCURATUS CORPORATION et al, No. 5:2012cv06189 - Document 66 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANT MATERION BRUSH INC. (#50) AND DEFENDANT ACCURATUS CORPORATION (#55) ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 3/24/14. 3/25/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRENDA ANN SCHWARTZ and PAUL GRANT SCHWARTZ, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6189 v. ACCURATUS CORPORATION, it is own right and as successor in interest to Accuratus Ceramic Corporation, and MATERION BRUSH INC., c/o C T Corporation System, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2014, upon consideration of the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Materion Brush Inc. (Docket #50) and Defendant Accuratus Corportation (Docket #55) and all supporting and opposing papers, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Accuratus Corporation s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #55) is GRANTED with respect to Count I, and Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Accuratus Corporation s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #55) is DENIED with respect to Count II. 3. Accuratus Corporation s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #55) is GRANTED with respect to Count III, and Count III is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Accuratus Corporation s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #55) is GRANTED with respect to Count IV, and Count IV is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. Materion Brush s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #50) is DENIED with respect to Count V. 6. Materion Brush s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #50) is DENIED with respect to Count VI. 7. Materion Brush s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #50) is GRANTED with respect to Count VII, and Count VII is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 8. Materion Brush s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #50) is DENIED with respect to Count VIII. 9. The Motions of both Defendants (Docket ##50 and #55) are DENIED with respect to Count IX. 10. The Motions of both Defendants (Docket ##50 and #55) are DENIED with respect to Count X. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J. 2

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.