BAKER v. MOON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al
| CURTIS BAKER |
| MOON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, GERARD TESTA, MICHAEL A. HAUSER, JAMES A. BOGATAY, ESQ., ROBERT E. HARPER, MARK SCAPPE, LISA WOLOWICZ and DANIELLE ZIEGER |
| 2:2015cv01674 |
| December 18, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
111
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 97) is granted only with respect to Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract and otherwise denied. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 98) is GRANTED only as to the dismissal of the individual Defendants; and the R&R (Doc. 108 ) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/23/2021. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/23/2021. (scl)
|
|
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM ORDER. For the reasons stated in the filing at this docket entry, the Report (Doc. 70 ) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court, the parties' respective objections (Docs. 71 , 72 ) are OVERRULED, and the following Order is entered: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 66 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically: As to Count I, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pre-deprivation due process claim, and GRANTED as to the remainder of Plaintiff's due process claim. The remainder of Plaintiff's due process claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. As to Count II, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. As to Count III, the Motion to Dismiss i s DENIED. As to Count IV, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Dragonetti Act claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/10/19. (rdl)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER adopting in part and rejecting in part Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61 ) re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21 ). Specifically, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to: Count I, to the extent that claim is based on a p rotected liberty interest or the process following Plaintiff's alleged deprivation of a protected property interest; Count III, to the extent that claim is based on violations of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act other than the 24-hour notice requir ement in 65 Pa. C.S. § 708(b); Count IV; and Count V. The Motion is DENIED as to the remainder of Counts I and III, and as to Count II. Count I is DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent that this claim is based on the assertion of a protected li berty interest. Count III is DISMISSED with prejudice, to the extent that claim is based on Pennsylvania Sunshine Act Violations other than the 24-hour notice requirement in 65 Pa. C.S. § 708(b). Count IV is DISMISSED with prejudice. Count V is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before September 7, 2018. Failure to file a second amended complaint on or before that date will result in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims dismissed without prejudice herein. This shall be Plaintiff's last and final opportunity to amend his complaint. Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/27/18. (rdl)
|
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 Western 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.
