MASON v. KRUCZAJ et al

Filing 35

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 18 ) IS GRANTED AND ALL REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL ON AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES (ECF NO. 22 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT . DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERT WALTER SIGNORELLI, ESQUIRE (ECF NO. 23 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING POST ARRAIGNMENT CONDUCT (ECF NO. 24 ) IS DENIED AS MO OT. DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (ECF NO. 25 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF RACIAL EPITHETS (ECF NO. 26 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED FROST HARASSMENT (ECF NO. 27 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 1/12/16. 1/14/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DWAUNE MASON
v.
OFFICER NICHOLAS KRUCZAJ, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 13-6512

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (ECF No. 19),
Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 20), Plaintiff’s Second Response in Opposition (ECF No. 21), and
the oral argument held on the motion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and all
remaining claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Amount of Punitive Damages (ECF No.
22) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Walter
Signorelli, Esquire (ECF No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Post Arraignment
Conduct (ECF No. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Emotional
Distress (ECF No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Racial Epithets (ECF No.
26) is DENIED AS MOOT.

1

7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Alleged Frost
Harassment (ECF No. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ L. Felipe Restrepo
L. FELIPE RESTREPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2