Kundratic v. Thomas et al
| Andrew Kundratic |
| John/Jane Does 1-5, Michael Shucosky, Gary Thomas, Anthony Lumbis, Tina Gartley, C.J. Buffalino and Arthur Silverblatt |
| 3:2012cv00017 |
| January 3, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Luzerne |
| Richard P. Conaboy |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
132
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Conclusion.Like every saga, this one must have an end. This case has evolved from a domestic dispute and has now been aired in three separate courts over a period of almost seven years. While the Court understands Plaintiff Kundratics frustration at the failure of his marriage and the resulting lengthy process to determine the property rights and custody rights of the parties, Kundratics disappointment with the various decisions made in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas is not the stuff of which a federal lawsuit is made. He has not even attempted to provide a plausible explanation of why three different attorneys would prostitute their services to suit the needs of Defendant Th omas. More importantly, Kundratic has produced no evidence that the sordid conspiracy he alleges ever existed. His surmise and belief that it did, standing alone, is not enough to create a material fact in dispute here.See Lexington Insurance Compa ny and Berkely Investment Group, supra. There is simply no evidence that has been brought to this Courts attention from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kundratic is entitled to relief. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment filed by all remaining Defendants must be granted. An Order consistent with this determination shall be filed contemporaneously herewith.Dated: November 26, 2013Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 11/26/13. (cc)
|
|
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM Whie we will deny Thomas's motion to dismiss for the reasons cited abvoe, we do note that it is incumbent upon Plaintiff Kundratic to develop through the discovery process some evidence of Thomas inappropriately abusing his position a s a "state actor" to Kundratic's detriment i nthe relevant time-periond, July 2, 2009 throgh January 4, 2012. We also emphasize that the failure to adduce such evidence wil render Kundratic's case vulnerable to subswquent case dispositive motions by Thomas and other Defendants. re 41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Gary Thomas Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 11/5/12. (cc)
|
|
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow).Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/14/2012. (bg, )
|
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.
