Richard A. Lloret
Judge Lloret no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Request for Review (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order”
“Plaintiff's Request for Review (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously with this Order”
“I will deny the Motion because Ms. Connors has not met the legal standard for relief. ... She simply reargues her position. That is not a basis for granting a reconsideration motion”
“Given well-settled case law in this jurisdiction and the need to move discovery on this matter forward, I find that Defendant's Motion to Quash is without merit and I will deny the motion.”
“After careful review of the pleadings and record before me, I will grant TWE's motion to dismiss against Watkins, with leave for plaintiff to amend within 14 days from the date of this order.”
“However, I will deny TWE's motion to convert this action to a summary judgment claim, because the supporting affidavits constitute inadmissible hearsay.”
“Defendants' motion to deem their RFAs admitted (Doc. No. 59) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for leave to withdraw her default admissions and to submit her written responses to Defendants RFA (Doc. No. 77) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's case in its entirety (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to impose sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs resulting from Plaintiff's delayed response to the RFAs and counsel's failure to confess from the outset that he had simply missed Defendants' email (Doc. No. 59) is GRANTED.”
“1. Alliance Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) Paul Sefcovic's First Counterclaim for contractual indemnification (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 1-13) is GRANTED. 2. Alliance Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) Paul Sefcovic's Second Counterclaim for contractual indemnification (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 14-24) is DENIED. 3. Alliance Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) the Sefcovic's and SLAMS' Third Counterclaim for contribution and indemnification (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 25-27) is GRANTED. 4. Alliance Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) Lianne Sefcovic's Fourth Counterclaim for breach of contract (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 28-35) is GRANTED. ... 5. Alliance Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) SLAMS' Fourth Counterclaim for breach of contract (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 28-35) is DENIED. 6. Kenneth Wanko's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 125) Count One of Lianne Sefcovic and SLAMS' Third Party Complaint for breach of contract against Kenneth Wanko (Doc. No. 91 at ¶¶ 1-6) is GRANTED.”
“1. That the Stonehenge Parties' motion for reconsideration is DENIED;”
“2. That the Sefcovic Parties' motion for reconsideration is DENIED except as provided in paragraph ‘A’ below. A. The Sefcovic Parties' motion for reconsideration to permit the Sefcovic Parties to argue facts relating to the Advisory Services Agreement (ASA) is granted.”
“3. That the Fenkell Parties' motion for reconsideration is DENIED;”
“5. The Alliance Parties' Motion to Strike is DENIED.”
“I will enter an appropriate order granting the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility and the Philadelphia Prison System are not separately named entities under 53 Pa. C.S.A. § 16257 and cannot be named as defendants. The Department of Corrections of the City of Philadelphia is not an entity within the Philadelphia City Government and cannot be named as a defendant. Summary judgment is GRANTED dismissing these three parties with prejudice. The City of Philadelphia shall remain as the sole named defendant. ... 3. Plaintiff has not developed a Fifth Amendment claim based on the Fifth Amendment, nor can he. All references to the Fifth Amendment are stricken from the pleadings. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a Fifth Amendment claim is DENIED as moot. 4. Summary judgment as to Count I is GRANTED. Count I is dismissed with prejudice, as the real property exception to governmental immunity is not applicable in this case, as a matter of law. 5. Summary judgment as to Count II is DENIED. A genuine issue of material fact exists whether the City proximately caused Mr. Taylor's injuries through a Constitutional violation. The matter will be tried to a jury.”
“1. Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Counts I and III. 2. Summary Judgment is GRANTED on the Count II FMLA interference claim. 3. Summary Judgment is DENIED on the Count II FMLA retaliation claim.”
“The Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
A historical record
Judge Lloret no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.