DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.

E.D. Pennsylvania

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.

DecidedApril 16, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-02447

StatusUnknown

This text of DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. (DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER : NETWORK, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civ. No. 18-2447 : SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., : Defendant. :

JUDGMENT AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2020, for the reasons provided in my Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 58), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45) is GRANTED; 2. Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Insofar as the Amended Complaint includes any state law claim—and it is by no means clear that it does—I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Born v. Aberdeen Police Dep’t, 397 F. App’x 801, 802 (3d Cir. 2010); 3. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs; 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED; 5. Defendant’s Motion in limine (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED as moot; and 6. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul S. Diamond _________________________ Paul S. Diamond, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER : NETWORK, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civ. No. 18-2447 : SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., : Defendant. :

JUDGMENT AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2020, for the reasons provided in my Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 58), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45) is GRANTED; 2. Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Insofar as the Amended Complaint includes any state law claim—and it is by no means clear that it does—I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Born v. Aberdeen Police Dep’t, 397 F. App’x 801, 802 (3d Cir. 2010); 3. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs; 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED; 5. Defendant’s Motion in limine (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED as moot; and 6. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul S. Diamond _________________________ Paul S. Diamond, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaware-riverkeeper-network-v-sunoco-pipeline-lp-paed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack