CLARK et al v. COLWYN BOROUGH et al

Filing 28

ORDER THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW BEARING TODAY'S DATE THE MOTIONS HEREIN ARE RULED ON AS OUTLINED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/12/2013. 2/12/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MAURICE J. CLARK, SR.,
et al.
v.
COLWYN BOROUGH, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-3668

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of February, 2013, upon
consideration of defendant Trevor Parham’s motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 16), and the motion to dismiss filed by defendants
Colwyn Borough, Wendell Reed, and Tonette Pray (Docket No. 17),
and the briefs submitted in support of and opposition to those
motions, and following a joint Rule 16 conference and oral
argument held on November 27, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the
reasons stated in a memorandum of law bearing today’s date, that:
1.

The motion by defendants Reed and Pray to dismiss
Count II is DENIED.

2.

Defendant Parham’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED
because it was withdrawn by the defendant.

3.

The motions by defendants Reed, Pray, and Parham
to dismiss Count VIII, plaintiff Banks’
Whistleblower Law claim, as time-barred are DENIED

without prejudice.
4.

The motion by defendants Reed and Pray to dismiss
the plaintiffs’ Whistleblower Law claims against
them for failure to state a claim is DENIED.

5.

Defendant Parham’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ Whistleblower Law claims against him
for failure to state a claim is GRANTED IN PART.
Counts X, XIII, and XV, the Whistleblower Law
claims by plaintiffs Sterling, Craddock, and
Seitz, are DISMISSED, but only with respect to
defendant Parham.

6.

The defendants’ motions to sever the claims
brought by plaintiffs Banks, Sterling, Craddock,
and Seitz are DENIED without prejudice.

7.

Defendant Parham’s motion to dismiss all claims
against him in his official capacity is DENIED as
moot.

8.

The defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’
claims for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania
Whistleblower Law are GRANTED as uncontested.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin
MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.
-2-