SUTTON v. DELANEY et al

Filing 78

ORDER THAT PLFF'S CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE OR DECLARATORY RELIEF ARE MOOT; ARAMARK DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 59) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS SSET FORTH BELOW; DEFT'S MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO PLFF'S CLAIM S UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND RLUIPA; DEFT'S MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO PLFF'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CLAIM AGAINST FLAHERTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DEFT'S MOTION IS DENIED AS TO PLFF'S CLAIMS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AS TO ARAMARK AND FLAHERTY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 5/20/14. 5/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY PLACED IN THE LEGAL BIN. (pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OLAF SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-7005

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2014, for the reasons
stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive or declaratory

relief are MOOT;
(2)

Aramark Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 59) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth
below;
(a)

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA;
(b)

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Clause claim against Flaherty in
his official capacity;
(C)

Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to

Plaintiff’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause as to

Aramark and Flaherty in his individual capacity;
(3)

City of Philadelphia’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment is GRANTED;
(4)

Counts III, IV, and V of the Amended Complaint

are DISMISSED;
(5)

Counts I, II, and VI may proceed to the extent

they seek monetary damages under the Equal Protection Clause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.