Monga
v.
Ottenberg

United States District Court, E.D. PennsylvaniaFeb 1, 2001
Civil Action No. 95-5235. (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2001)

Civil Action No. 95-5235.

February 2001.


MEMORANDUM and ORDER


Presently before this Court are Motion of Vanguard and IFTC to Dismiss This Action with Prejudice (Docket No. 70), Motion of Founders Funds to Dismiss with Prejudice (Docket No. 72), Plaintiff's Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to vanguard's, IFTC's and Founders Motions to Dismiss (Docket No. 87), Reply Brief of Vanguard and IFTC in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss this Action with Prejudice (Docket No. 88) and Reply of Founders Funds, Inc. in Support of its Motion to Dismiss this Action with Prejudice (Docket No. 89). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motions are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION ORDER

AND NOW, this day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Corrected Memorandum for Plaintiff's December 26, 2000 Memorandum in Opposition to Vanguard's, IFTC's and Founders' Motions to Dismiss (Docket No. 86), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

As a result of Defendants' failure to respond to Plaintiff's Motion, the Court treats this motion as uncontested pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. E.D. Pa. R. Civ. P. 7.1(c). Rule 7.1(c) states that, except for summary judgment motions, "any party opposing the motion shall serve a brief in opposition, together with such answer or other response which may be appropriate, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion and supporting brief. In the absence of a timely response, the motion may be granted as uncontested. . . ." Id. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion.