Summary
noting that the defendant was using a motion to dismiss allegedly vague class action allegations "as an opportunity to attack the merits of the class itself" and concluding that such an attack was improper before a class certification motion had been filed
Summary of this case from Bell v. Money Resource Corp.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1110.
July 31, 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2007, it is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED;
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss for vague and conclusory class action allegations is DENIED;
3. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity is GRANTED;
4. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted is DENIED;
5. Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to any putative class member who is not a resident of Pennsylvania is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order to amend and resubmit the complaint in compliance with this Order.