R. Barclay Surrick

“upon consideration of Defendant Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (ECF No. 21), and Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 22), it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.”

“upon consideration of Defendant City of Philadelphia's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) and Plaintiff Linda Trush's Opposition thereto (ECF No. 5), it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”

“Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.”

“upon consideration of Defendant Power Quality Sciences, Inc.'s and Defendant Derek Sweat's joint Motion to Supplement their individual Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Powervar, Inc. t/a AMETEK Powervar's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15) ... it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is DENIED.”

“upon consideration of Defendant United States Department of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment (Mot., ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff's response thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.”

“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED”

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

“The Motion to Remand is GRANTED; and”

“Defendant Sunrun Inc., Leroi Taylor, Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, and Vivint Solar, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 5), Defendant Goodleap, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation (ECF No. 6), Defendant Sunrun Inc, Leroi Taylor, Vivint Solar, Defendant Sunrun Inc., Leroi Taylor, Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, and Vivint Solar, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief (ECF No. 9), and Defendant Goodleap, LLC’s Motion to File Reply Brief (ECF No. 10) are DENIED as MOOT; and”

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II (ADA discrimination) and III of the Complaint is granted without prejudice. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count II (ADA retaliation) is denied.”

“For the forgoing reasons, Comcast’s motion will be granted. Accordingly, Lu’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”

“Rockwell’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to: (i) Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act in Count I, and (ii) Plaintiffs’ claim under the Catch-All Provision in Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (‘UTPCPL’), 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-2(4)(xxi), in Count II except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks. Rockwell’s Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise DENIED.”

“VFREG’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to: (i) Plaintiffs’ claim under the UTPCPL’s Catch-All Provision in Count II except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks, and (ii) Plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation and/or concealment claim in Count IV except as to post-contractual representations regarding Plaintiffs’ decks. VFREG’s Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise DENIED.”

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

“it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT is entered in favor of Plaintiff US Bortek, LLC and against Defendant Oz Directional Drilling, Inc. in the total amount of $878,302.16 as detailed in the accompanying Memorandum.”

“upon consideration Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 42), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”