Blake v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOYNER, District Judge.
Via the motions now before us, Defendants individually move for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Defendant Motor Coach Industries, Inc. (“MCI”) is granted, the motion of Defendant Service Master Inc. (“SMI”) is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion of Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“GLI”) is denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff, David Blake (“Plaintiff’) was an employee of BCA Management Compa ny, which supplied laborers to SMI. 1 GLI contracted SMI to clean and maintain GLI’s buses. 2 Plaintiffs work for SMI…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- The Medical Protective Company v. William WatkinsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Martinez v. Triad Controls, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Spowal v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Dorshimer v. Zonar Systems, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Nilson v. Hershey Entertainment and Resorts Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2009