ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C. v. OPTUM, INC. et al
| ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C. |
| OPTUM, INC. and OPTUMINSIGHT, INC. |
| 5:2017cv01643 |
| April 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Lehigh |
| EDWARD G. SMITH |
| Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 (b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 |
| None |
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
58
ORDER OF 7/27/2018 THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS (DOC. NO. 40), THE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED BY THE PLFF (DOC. NO. 47), THE DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO THE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION (DOC. NO. 50), THE R ECORD PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE PARTIES, THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE COURT DURING ORAL ARGUMENT; AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE SEPARATELY FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD GMENT (DOC. NO. 40) IS GRANTED IN PART; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST THE PLFF ON COUNT 1 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 25); COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 25) IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY JUDGE: EDWARD G. SMITH. 7/27/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (DT)
|
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.
