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.

Rose v. Rothrock

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 29, 2009

JIMI ROSE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE
v.
BRUCE ROTHROCK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gene E.K. Pratter United States District Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2009, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 4), Defendants' Motion to Seal the Complaint or to Strike the Complaint of Scandalous and Impertinent Material (Docket No. 7), Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 9), and Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for Sanctions (Docket Nos. 5, 11, 12), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claims under § 1985(3) and for breach of contract are DISMISSED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Seal the Complaint or to Strike the Complaint of Scandalous and Impertinent Material (Docket No. 7) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Defendants' Motion to Seal the Complaint is DENIED. As to the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Complaint of Scandalous and Impertinent Material, it is GRANTED as to the last sentence of paragraph 25, the last sentence of paragraph 32, the second sentence of paragraph 58, all of paragraph 61, and all of paragraph 70 and DENIED without prejudice as to the remaining paragraphs identified in the Motion.

3. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice.

20090429

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



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.