MILES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED AND: (1) COUNT 1 OF PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH ASSERTS A CLAIM FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AGAINST RAMSEY, GRAMLICH AND GAL LAGHER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND STRICKEN FROM THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNT II, WHICH ASSERTS A MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND STRICKEN FROM THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (3) COUNT IV OF P LAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH SETS FORTH HER CLAIMS PURSUANT TO THE PHRA, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT ASSERTS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS RAMSEY AND GALLAGHER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 1/10/13. 1/10/13 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.
AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2013, upon consideration of a partial motion to
dismiss the amended complaint of plaintiff Jamie Miles filed by defendants the City of
Philadelphia, Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Captain Frank Gramlich, Captain Dennis
Gallagher, Sergeant Steve Naughton and Corporal Karen Preston and plaintiff’s response thereto
and consistent with the accompanying memorandum of law, it is ORDERED that the motion is
Count I of plaintiff’s third amended complaint, which asserts a claim for
First Amendment retaliation against Ramsey, Gramlich and Gallagher is
DISMISSED with prejudice and STRICKEN 1 from the third amended
Count II, which asserts a Monell claim against the City of Philadelphia is
DISMISSED with prejudice and STRICKEN from the third amended
Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court may
strike from a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The court may use its power to strike “to clean up the
pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.”
McInerney v. Mayer Lumber & Hardware, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 393, 402 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
Count IV of plaintiff’s third amended complaint, which sets forth her
claims pursuant to the PHRA, is DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent
that it asserts claims against defendants Ramsey and Gallagher;
As a result of this ruling the only claims remaining in this lawsuit are: (1) plaintiff’s
claim against the City of Philadelphia for employment discrimination/retaliation pursuant to Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 200e, et seq., as is set forth in Count III of the third amended complaint; and (2)
plaintiff’s claim for employment discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment
pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951-963 against the City of
Philadelphia, Gallagher, Naughton, Preston and Vega, as is set forth in Count IV of the third
It is ORDERED that on or before January 28, 2013 the City of Philadelphia, Gallagher,
Naughton and Preston shall file answers to the remaining claims against them.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge L. Felipe
Restrepo for all pretrial proceedings.
s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.
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.
Why Is My Information Online?