Bartos v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection et al
Plaintiff: Stephen D. Bartos
Defendant: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, Kathleen A. McGinty, Patrick McDonnell and Kenneth R. Reisinger
Case Number: 1:2008cv00366
Filed: February 26, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Dauphin
Presiding Judge: Yvette Kane
Presiding Judge: J. Andrew Smyser
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 172 ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 146 Motion to Preclude reference to defense counsel's representation of perjured witnesses at their deposition is GRANTED. Dft's 150 Mtn to preclude intro of evidence related to the discipline of ot her DEP employees is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART as noted in order. Dfts 152 Mtn to preclude reference to the false testimony of Donald Hagerich or Patricia Olenick is GRANTED. Pltf's 148 Motion in Limine is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART as noted in the order. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on April 13, 2012. SEE ORDER. (sc, )
September 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 125 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on Sept. 29, 2011. SEE MEMORANDUM FOR DETAILS. (sc)
June 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1)The Court ADOPTS the R&R of MJ Carlson. 2)Summary Jgm is entered in favor of Dfts McGinty and McDonnell on all claims. 3)Sumjgm is entered in favor of Dft Reisinger on Bartos' procedural due process clms, Fair Labor Standard Act clms, 'stigma-plus' liberty interest clms, and Bartos' clms under 42 USC 1985(3). 4) 5)Clerk of Court shall defer entering jgm until all clms have been adjudicated. 6)This case shall be REMANDED to MJ Carlson for further pretrial mgmt. 109 122 Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on June 16, 2011. (sc)
July 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 101 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, upon consideration of this Petition for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Docs. 89, 90, 99 and 100), and the responses thereto (Docs. 97 and 98), IT IS ORDERED that the Petition be GRANTE D, in part, and attorneys fees of $17,150.01 are awarded in this matter, along with costs totaling, $1,466.05, for a total sanction of fees and costs of $18,616.06. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patricia Olenick and Donald Hagerich shall each make payments of half of these fees and costs, in individual amounts of $9,308.03 each to the Plaintiffs counsel on or before August 23, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on July 20, 2010. (kjn )
May 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 88 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 36 Motion for Sanctions. The Pltf is ordered to submit an itemized listing of those costs and fees that he believes are directly associated with the depositions of Olenick and Hagerich, as well as the costs of litigating these motions, and a memorandum of law in support of these requested costs and fees on or before May 19, 2010. The witnesses shall then lodge appropriate objections to any claimed costs and fees, and to provide any information which they possess that may be relevant to a determination of their ability to pay costs and fees, and an accompanying brief, on or before June 2, 2010. The Pltf may then file a reply brief in support of this motion and request on or before June 16, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 5, 2010. (kjn )
April 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 87 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 41 Motion to Strike Erratta Sheets. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 23, 2010. (kjn)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bartos v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stephen D. Bartos
Represented By: Frank P. Clark
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kathleen A. McGinty
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Patrick McDonnell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kenneth R. Reisinger
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?