Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CAMPONOVO v. HAYEK

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania


April 6, 2004.

DR. ERNEST CAMPONOVO, Plaintiff,
v.
SALIM HAYEK, TIMOTHY L. SPRAGUE, and JOSEPH SAPONARO, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD BUCKWALTER, District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant Salim Hayek's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a More Definitive Statement (Docket No. 4), Plaintiff Ernest Camponovo's opposition thereto (Docket No. 7) and Defendant Hayek's reply to Plaintiff's opposition (Docket No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff's sole cause of action is under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law ("PWPCL") where he is attempting to collect a money judgment from the Officers of Prometheus Health Imaging, Inc. ("Prometheus"), where a judgment was previously entered against Prometheus, but where Prometheus has not paid the judgment. Plaintiff is not attempting to relitigate whether there was a breach of the employment contract. Accordingly, the employment contract is not an issue in this case.

  Additionally, Hayek has prematurely asked the Court to determine whether he can be held liable under the PWPCL for Prometheus' debts. Based on the authority that Hayek submitted to the Court, such a determination requires findings of fact.*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.