From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Frederick

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 10, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv-2119 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 10, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv-2119.

September 10, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant Ephrata Community Hospital's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) (Doc. No. 4) and the Response of Plaintiffs thereto (Doc. No. 10), it is hereby ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, the Motion is DENIED and:

1) The motion to strike allegations of corporate negligence against Defendant is DENIED.

2) The motion to strike allegations based on actions of unnamed employees, agents, ostensible agents, and other individuals is DENIED.


Summaries of

Davis v. Frederick

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 10, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv-2119 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 10, 2010)
Case details for

Davis v. Frederick

Case Details

Full title:SHANE R. DAVIS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. JOHN R. FREDERICK, M.D., et al…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 10, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-cv-2119 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 10, 2010)

Citing Cases

Sipp-Lipscomb v. Einstein Physicians Pennypack Pediatrics

Given that conflict, this Court must apply the Federal Rules "to the exclusion of" the state rules.…

RECKITT BENCKISER INC. v. TRIS PHARMA, INC.

These allegations, albeit untested, adequately allege ownership of the trade secrets, that the trade secrets…