GOODEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANT'S COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THEM FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT JOLLY RAMAKRISHNAN, MICHELLE HOWARD-VITAL, AND IVAN BANKS MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS I, III, AND V FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IS GRANTED; THE COURT DISMISSED SUA SPONTE CLAIMS I AND III OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT ELAINE CARTER; AND COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 12/10/2010. 12/10/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kk, )

GOODEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Doc. 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AYO MARIA GOODEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. : : : : : : ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2010, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the motion of defendants Commonwealth of CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-3792

Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education to dismiss all claims against them for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is GRANTED; (2) the motion of defendants Jolly Ramakrishnan,

Michelle Howard-Vital, and Ivan Banks to dismiss claims I, III, and V for failure to state a claim is GRANTED; (3) the court DISMISSES sua sponte claims I and III of

the amended complaint as to defendant Elaine Carter; and (4) Count II of the amended complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III C.J.

Dockets.Justia.com