WATSON et al v. HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT 1 OF THE COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER HARVEY PIKE AND OFFICER STEVEN GILL ON COUNT 1 OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. THE HAVERFORD DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 5/24/12. 5/25/12 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JANET WATSON and WILLIAM
WATSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE `
DEPARTMENT, THE TOWNSHIP OF
HAVERFORD, CARMEN D. PETTINE,
HARVEY PIKE, STEVEN GILL, and
JOHN PILI,

Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-6731

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of the Complaint Against Officers Pike and Gill (Docket No.
26) and the Response of Defendants Haverford Township Police Department, the Township of
Haverford, Harvey Pike, and Steven Gill (collectively “the Haverford Defendants”) (Docket No. 30);
and (2) the Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 25), Plaintiffs’
Response (Docket No. 31), the Haverford Defendants’ Reply Brief (Docket No. 32), and Plaintiffs’
Sur-Reply Brief (Docket No. 34), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of the Complaint is
GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendants Officer Harvey Pike and Officer Steven Gill on Count I of the Amended
Complaint.

2.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

With respect to the John Doe Defendants, the Haverford Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the John Doe
Defendants on all claims and against Plaintiffs.

b.

With respect to Defendant Haverford Township Police Department, the
Haverford Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED
in favor of Defendant Haverford Township Police Department on all claims
and against Plaintiffs.

c.

With respect to Defendant Township of Haverford, the Haverford Defendants’
Motion is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant
Township of Haverford on all claims.

d.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ §
1983 claims of unlawful arrest and excessive force against Officers Pike and
Gill is DENIED.

e.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ §
1985 claim is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the
Haverford Defendants and against Plaintiffs on the § 1985 claim.

f.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ state
law claims of assault and battery is DENIED.

g.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ state
law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment is DENIED.

h.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ state
law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is GRANTED.
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the Haverford Defendants and
against Plaintiffs on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

i.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ state
law claim of negligence is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in
favor of the Haverford Defendants and against Plaintiffs on the negligence
claim.

j.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ state
law claim of loss of consortium is DENIED.

k.

The Haverford Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’
claim for punitive damages is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.