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.

Cataldo Pirito v. Penn Engineering World Holdings

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


May 16, 2013

CATALDO PIRITO
v.
PENN ENGINEERING WORLD HOLDINGS, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stewart Dalzell, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of plaintiff Cataldo Pirito's motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 117), defendants Penn Engineering World Holdings and Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.'s motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 116), plaintiff's response and brief in opposition thereto (docket entry # 119), defendants' response and brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion to dismiss (docket entry # 120), plaintiff's reply (docket entry # 121), defendants' response in support of their motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 122), defendants' response to the Court's request for briefing on the effect of the January 16, 2013 decision of the Milan Court of Appeals (docket entry # 128), plaintiff's letter regarding the same (docket entry # 127), defendants' motion for costs (docket entry # 129), plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (docket entry # 131), and defendants' motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of their motion for costs (docket entry # 132), and upon the analysis set forth in the accompanying Memorandum which supplements our prior ruling of December 22, 2011 (docket nos. 55 and 56), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 117) is DENIED;

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 116) is GRANTED;

3. Counts I and IV of the Counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

4. Our Judgment confirming the September 18, 2009 arbitration award is made FINAL AND ENFORCEABLE in accordance with the Amended Judgment filed herewith pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58;

5. Defendants' motion for costs (docket entry # 129) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

6. Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply brief (docket entry # 132) is DENIED AS MOOT; and

7. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case statistically.

BY THE COURT:

Stewart Dalzell, J

20130516

© 1992-2013 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.