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.

Lennon v. Penn Waste

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


October 7, 2009

ROBERT J. LENNON, JR., PLAINTIFF
v.
PENN WASTE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2009, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 16), to which no objections were filed, and which recommends that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in part, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff's claims for false light invasion of privacy and extortion fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,*fn1*fn2 see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), but that plaintiff adequately states claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),*fn3 as well as a claim for negligence and unjust enrichment, (see Doc. 16 at 22-25, 28-31), it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as follows:

a. The report and recommendation is ADOPTED insofar as it recommends dismissal of plaintiff's false light invasion of privacy and extortion claims. Leave to amend plaintiff's false light invasion of privacy claim is granted. Leave to amend plaintiff's claim for extortion is denied as futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

b. The report is ADOPTED insofar as it recommends that the court deny the motion to dismiss plaintiff's negligence claim, and insofar as it denies defendant's motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).

c. The report and recommendation is REJECTED insofar as it recommends that plaintiff's FDCPA claims be limited solely to those arising after January 28, 2008.

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this order on or before October 28, 2009.

3. The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in accordance with this order.


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.