RISTER v. COMMUNITY BANK OF ROWAN, No. 5:2014cv05079 - Document 39 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (NO. 7) IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (NO. 7) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES (NO. 7) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANT&# 039;S MOTION TO TRANSFER, (NO. 8) IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (NO. 21) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 9/21/15. 9/22/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

Download PDF
RISTER v. COMMUNITY BANK OF ROWAN Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ TIMOTHY S. RISTER, : : Plaintiff, : v. : : COMMUNITY BANK OF ROWAN, : : Defendant. : __________________________________________ No. 14-cv-5079 ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Community Bank of Rowan’s (now Yadkin Bank), Rule 12(b)(2)(5)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Alternative Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement, and Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Unliquidated Damages Amounts, ECF No. 7, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 8, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 21, and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. a. Counts One through Three and Counts Five through Seventeen of the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. b. Count Four of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is permitted LEAVE TO AMEND his Complaint solely with respect to the claims raised in Count Four of the Complaint, in accordance with the accompanying Opinion. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he 1 Dockets.Justia.com must file the amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this Order. 2. Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Unliquidated Damages, ECF No. 7, is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. Defendant’s Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 8, is DENIED. 5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 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.