SODEXOMAGIC, LLC v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY
| SODEXOMAGIC, LLC |
| DREXEL UNIVERSITY |
| 2:2016cv05144 |
| September 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Lehigh |
| MICHAEL M. BAYLSON |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
249
ORDER THAT DREXEL'S MOTION TO STRIKE WILL BE GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. SODEXO'S MOTION TO STRIKE WILL BE DENIED. DREXEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILL BE GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. SODEXO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG MENT WILL BE GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. COUNTS I,II,III, IV OF SODEXO'S COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED, COUNT V OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED IN PART, COUNT I OF DREXEL'S COUNTERCLAIMS WILL BE DISMISSED AND COUNT II OF DREXEL'S COUNTERCLAIMS WILL BE DISMISSED IN PART.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 8/2/2018. 8/2/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL FILING, LIMITED TO THE TWO CLAIMS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING MEMORANDUM, BY 12/8/2017. DEFENDANT SHALL ANSWER BY 12/20/2017. NO MOTION TO DISMISS MAY BE FILED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE FOREGOING MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 11/28/17. 11/29/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
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.
