From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vurimindi v. City of Philadelphia

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 10, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-0088 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Enty v. Tax Review Bd.
See 8 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-0088.

August 10, 2010

ORDER

EDMUND LUDWIG, Senior District Judge

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2010, the following motions are granted:

1. "Defendants' New Kensington Community Development Corporation and Richard Levins, Esquire's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" (docket no. 19);

2. "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint of Defendants The City of Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter, Councilman Darrell Clarke, Scott Mulderig, Michael Curran, Edward Devlin, Frances Burns, the Redevelopment Authority, and Terry Gillen" (docket no. 21);

3. "Defendant Fishtown Neighbors Association's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" (docket no. 25).

Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. By Friday, August 20, 2010, plaintiff may file an amended complaint. A memorandum accompanies this order.

Summaries of

Vurimindi v. City of Philadelphia

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 10, 2010
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-0088 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2010)

holding that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Enty v. Tax Review Bd.

holding that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Alvarez v. City of Philadelphia

holding that under 53 PA. CONS. STAT. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Coward v. Phila. Dep't of Prisons

holding that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Christian v. City of Philadelphia

holding that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, "no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia"

Summary of this case from Garvin v. City of Philadelphia

holding that under 53 P.S. § 16257, "no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia"

Summary of this case from Grace v. Fox

holding that under 53 P.S. § 16257, "no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia"

Summary of this case from Green v. City of Philadelphia

observing that under 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 16257, “no such department shall be taken to have had . . . a separate corporate existence, and hereafter all suits growing out of their transaction . . . shall be in the name of the City of Philadelphia”

Summary of this case from Berry v. Sellers
Case details for

Vurimindi v. City of Philadelphia

Case Details

Full title:VAMSIDHAR R. VURIMINDI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 10, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-0088 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2010)

Citing Cases

Woolford v. Bartol

Furthermore, agencies of the City of Philadelphia, such as the Philadelphia Police Department, do not have a…

Williams v. Dooley

Furthermore, agencies of the City of Philadelphia, such as the Philadelphia Police Department, do not have a…

32 Citing Cases