Wren v. County of Luzerne, et al
| Richard Wren |
| County of Luzerne, Maryanne C Petrilla and Stephen A. Urban |
| 3:2011cv01769 |
| September 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Luzerne |
| Richard P. Conaboy |
| 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
77
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)The Court recognizes that witnesses may, deliberately or inadvertently, wander into areas previously proscribed by rulings of this Court. In such circumstances, the Court may have to reconsider its rulings and, in certain circumstances, even reverse them. Hopefully, this can be avoided by scrupulous preparation by counsel. However, witnesses may deliberately try to inject into the case matters which the Court has ruled are inappropriate under the circumstances of the pleadings. Whatever the cause, there may be need for the Court to reconsider some of the rulings issued onotions filed by counsel in this case.The Court has thoroughly considered the arguments presented by counsel regarding D efendants' motions. It is our hope that continued assiduous preparation will help in counsel presenting this case thoroughly and directly to a jury. It is also our hope that the rulings on the motions filed will enable counsel, especially in pre paration of things like opening statements and examination of jurors, to move the trial along expeditiously and that only appropriate questions will be raised and discussed in the courtroom before the jury. An Order consistent with the foregoingMemorandum will be filed contemporaneously herewithSigned by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/19/15. (cc)
|
|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM For the reasons discussed above, Defendants County of Luzerne, Maryanne C. Petrilla and Stephen A. Urbans Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is granted in part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in part. The motion is granted insofa r as Plaintiffs First Amendment free speech claims are dismissed from Counts I and II; the motion is denied insofar as Plaintiffs First Amendment association claims in Counts I and II go forward as to the Defendants identified in each claim. The mot ion is held in abeyance on Plaintiffs age discrimination claims in Counts III and IV. A decision on these claims will be rendered following required briefing. An appropriate Order will be filed simultaneously with this motion. re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maryanne C Petrilla, County of Luzerne, Stephen A. Urban Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 2/8/13. (cc)
|
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 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.
