ZATUCHNI v. RICHMAN et al
| LEAH ZATUCHNI |
| ESTELLE B. RICHMAN, THOMAS J. ELLIS, JAMES E. MATTHEWS, RUTH S. DAMSKER, ERIC GOLDSTEIN, MARGUERITE V. PEASHOCK, KAREN D. KENNY, MARKITA BARKER and MELMARK, INC. |
| 2:2007cv04600 |
| November 1, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Montgomery |
| CYNTHIA M. RUFE |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1396 - Tort Negligence |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
98
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT, MELMARK, INC. TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 6/30/09. 7/1/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
|
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN THEIR OFFICIAL C APACITY" AS DEFENDANT IN PLACE OF DEFENDANTS THOMAS J. ELLIS, JAMES E. MATTHEWS AND RUTH S. DAMSKER IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO 28 C.F.R. SECTIONS 35.130(D) AND 41.51(D) IS LEAH'S ADA AND RA CLAIM IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 5/11/09. 5/11/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
