CHAN v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER et al
| WENDY CHAN |
| COUNTY OF LANCASTER, DENNIS STUCKEY, SCOTT MARTIN, CRAIG LEHMAN, CHARLES E. DOUTS, JR. and ANDREA MCCUE |
| 5:2010cv03424 |
| July 13, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Lancaster |
| JAMES KNOLL GARDNER |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
74
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HER CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET ARE WITH WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET IS DISMISSED FROM THE WITHIN ACTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ("MOTION") IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 6/4/2013. 6/4/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATIO N OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION, AND CONSPIRACY; AND DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM IN COUNT II AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LANCASTER FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND THE CLAIM IN COUNT IV AGAINST ALL DE FENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT (PHRA), TO THE EXTENT THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN COUNT I, TO THE EXTENT IT IS BASED ON DEPRIVATIO N OF A PROPERTY INTEREST IN PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYMENT, IS DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CLAIM IN COUNT I, TO THE EXTENT IT IS BASED ON DEPRIVATION OF A LIBERTY INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF S REPUTATION, IS DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RE-PLEAD THIS CLAIM IN IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMS FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND CONSPIRACY IN COUNT I ARE DISMISSED AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJ UDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO REPLEAD THESE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIM IN COUNT II AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LANCASTER FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND THE CLAIM IN COUNT IV AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT S FOR VIOLATION OF THE PHRA, TO THE EXTENT THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF TO REPLEAD THESE CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMS IN COUNT I FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED WRONGFUL TERMINATION ARE WITHDRAWN AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAIN TIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 2011 TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDER AND ACCOMPANYING OPINION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN THE EVENT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY OCTOBER 17, 2011, DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 31, 2011 TO ANSWER THE REMAINING CLAIMS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/26/11. 9/27/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
