Cruthird et al v. Boston Police Department et al
| Selena V Cruthird and Dwayne M. Cruthird |
| Boston Police Department, City of Boston, Edward F. Davis, Anthony Alexis, Kurt Stokinger and Thomas Menino |
| 1:2010cv10438 |
| March 15, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Patti B. Saris |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
70
Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: 1. Defendant LeFevre's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 43) is ALLOWED with respect to plaintiff Selena Cruthirds federal claims; 2. Defendant LeFevre's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30) is A LLOWED with respect to Selena Cruthird's federal claims; however, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to the request for entry of separate and final judgment;3. Plaintiff Selena Cruthird's Motion to Strike LeFevres Affirmative Defe nses (Docket No. 41) is DENIED; 4.The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff Selena Cruthird against defendant LeFevre, and these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;5.Plaintiff Dwayne Cr uthird's Motion for Limited Discovery on the Loss of Consortium Claim (Docket No. 47) is DENIED; the Court declines to vacate the dismissal of Dwayne Cruthird's Loss of Consortium claim; 6.Defendant Stokinger and Alexis's Motion to Dis miss (Docket No. 51) is DENIED with respect to plaintiff Selena Cruthirds federal claims, and with respect to the state claims of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and claims under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act; the Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to all negligence claims. 7.Plaintiff Selena Cruthird's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Claims (Docket No. 58) is ALLOWED. All claims of plaintiff Selena Cruthird against defendants Boston Police Department, Commissioner Edward F. D avis, and Mayor Thomas Menino are DISMISSED. 8.Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 53) with respect to plaintiff Selena Cruthirds claims against Boston Police Department, Commissioner Edward F. Davis, and Mayor Thomas Menino are DENIED as moot in view of the voluntary dismissal of all claims; 9. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 53) with respect to plaintiff Selena Cruthirds claims against the City of Boston are ALLOWED as to the federal claims. 10.The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff Selena Cruthird against defendant City of Boston, and these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 11.Defendants' Motion to Strike Opposition (Docket No. 66) is DE NIED; 12.Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Their Motion to Strike (Docket No. 67) is ALLOWED; 13.Plaintiff Selena Cruthird's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 57) is DENIED; 14.Defendan ts' Motion for a Protective Order (Docket No. 64) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part; defense counsel shall consult with the docket clerk to ensure confidential information is sealed on the docket and to substitute a redacted version for the public record. The parties shall not file for the public record any confidential information absent prior permission of the Court; and any request for a protective order with respect to discovery of confidential information must be made in a motion that complies with Local Rule 7.1; and 15.A further scheduling conference shall be set to address discovery matters and the filing of summary judgment motions. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin for all pretrial management. (PSSA, 1)
|
|
Filing
29
Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen (Docket No. 26) is ALLOWED; The Clerk shall re-open this case on the Court dockets; Plaintiff Selena Cruthird is ordered to file a written statement with this Court within seven (7) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order certifying that she presently has the intention to proceed with this action pro se in all stages of the litigation (unless she is represented by duly-licensed counsel), and that she un derstands that her husband Dwayne will not be permitted to represent her at any time, including trial. Failure of plaintiff to file such certification as directed will result in the dismissal of all of her claims. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Docket No. 21) is ALLOWED. The proposed Amended Complaint (Docket No. 21-1) shall constitute the operative pleading in this action, and plaintiffs will not be permitted to further amend the Amended Complaint absent leave of c ourt upon good cause shown; Any motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint shall be filed by the defendants within 14 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion/Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their Fifth and Eighth Amendme nt claims (Docket No. 24) is ALLOWED; Defendants' request to strike plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (contained in the Opposition, Docket No. 27) is DENIED; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice as moot; and Plaintiffs' request for service of a copy of the City of Bostons Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25) is ALLOWED and counsel for the City of Boston is directed to send plaintiffs the requested document.(PSSA, 1)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
