BROOM et al v. NEUMANN et al

Filing 31

ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. NO. 16) DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(DOC. NO. 24) AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY (DOC. NO.25) ARE DENIED. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SHALL MEET AND CONFER TO DISCUSS WHETHER THE PARTIES WILL NEED AN EXTENSION OF THE CURREBT PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE. THE PARTIES SHALL REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING JOINTLY OR SEPARATLEY ON OR BEFORE 7/12/10 AS TO WHETHER THEY BELIEVE AN EXTESION OF THESE DEADLINES WILL BE NECESSARY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/25/10. 6/25/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN BROOM, et al. v. SAINTS JOHN NEWUMAN & MARIA GORETTI CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, et al. : : : : : : : ORDER AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket No. 16), the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 24), and the plaintiffs' Motion to Stay (Docket No. 25), and the various responses and replies thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in a Memorandum of today's date, that: 1. 2. These motions are DENIED. As stated in the plaintiffs' briefing on these CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-5366

motions, the plaintiffs are voluntarily withdrawing and no longer pursuing their claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, as well as their claims for equitable relief. The only remaining causes of action in the

plaintiffs' complaint, therefore, are their claims against all defendants under 42 U.S.C § 1981.

3.

Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer to

discuss whether the parties will need an extension of the current pre-trial schedule, which was issued in the Court's Order of February 19, 2010, and which provides for an end of discovery on July 16, 2010. The parties shall report to the Court in writing,

jointly or separately, on or before July 12, 2010, as to whether they believe an extension of these deadlines will be necessary, and if so, what new dates they propose for the end of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

-2-