LUO v. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 47

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF JENN-CHIN LUO'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART. DEFEDANT SKIDMORE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AND A LL CLAIMS AGAINST SKIDMORE ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANT MONTAYNE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT KOLBAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS BALL AND OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT, COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 15 -2952, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. LUO'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS DENIED. THE DISTRICT'S MOTION TO DISMISS LUO'S COUNTERCLAIM IS GRANTED AND THE COUNTERCLAIM IS DISMISSED WIT H PREJUDICE. THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AND THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4248, IT IS OR DERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART. DEFENDANT MONTAYNE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST MONTAYNE ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE MOTION TO DISMISS BY THE DISTRICT, BALL AND SCHNEIDER I S GRANTED IN PART. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5248 SHALL BE MARKED CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT LUO SHALL HAVE THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-6354 AND 15-2952 SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED. THE CLERK SHALL DOCKET ALL FILINGS ON THESE CONSOLIDATED MATTERS UNDER CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 14-6354. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 10/27/16. 10/27/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JENN-CHING LUO

:
:
v.
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
NOS. 14-6354, 15-4248
OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL
:
DISTRICT, et al.
:
______________________________________ :______________________________________
:
OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
v.
:
NO. 15-2952
:
B.L., by and through his Parent,
:
Jenn-Ching Luo.
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2016, upon consideration of plaintiff Jenn-Chin
Luo’s objections to the report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Carol
Sandra Moore Wells in Civil Action No. 14-6354, 1 it is ORDERED that the report and
recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED IN PART as follows:
1.

2.

1

Defendant Skidmore’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED and all
claims against Skidmore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant Montayne’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED and all
claims against Skidmore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I considered the following documents in making this ruling: the motion to dismiss of
defendants Geoffrey Ball and the Owen J. Roberts School District (Dkt. No. 12), the motion to
dismiss of defendant Sharon W. Montayne (Dkt. No. 14), the motion to dismiss of defendant
Cathy A. Skidmore (Dkt. No. 21), the motion to dismiss of defendant Keri Kolbay (Dkt. No. 22),
plaintiff Jenn-Ching Luo’s responses to these motions (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26 and 28), defendants’
reply briefs (Dkt. Nos. 27, 29, 30 and 32), the report and recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Dkt. No. 35), plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 38),
defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 40, 41, 43 and 45), plaintiff’s
supplemental brief to oppose defendant Skidmore’s response (Dkt. No. 42) and plaintiff’s motion
to strike (Dkt. No. 44).

3.

Defendant Kolbay’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to her right to reassert her arguments regarding qualified immunity
and failure to identify a protectable liberty interest in a motion to dismiss a second
amended complaint.

4.

Defendants Ball and Owen J. Roberts School District’s motion to dismiss (Dkt.
No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a.
b.

All claims against the School District (claims 1–3 and 5–8) are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff’s right to re-plead these
claims in a second amended complaint.

c.

The motion to dismiss claims against Ball is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to reassert his arguments regarding qualified immunity and
failure to identify a protectable liberty interest in a motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint.

d.

5.

All Fifth Amendment claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

To the extent the amended complaint alleges IDEA claims against the
individual defendants or any violations of IDEA, these claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt No. 44) is DENIED.

Upon consideration of defendant, counterclaim-plaintiff and third-party plaintiff JennChin Luo’s objections to the report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge
Carol Sandra Moore Wells in Civil Action No. 15-2952, 2 it is ORDERED that the report and
recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED as follows:
2

I considered the following documents in making this ruling: defendant, counterclaimplaintiff and third-party plaintiff Jenn-Chin Luo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
complaint (Dkt. No. 10), plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant Owen J. Roberts School District’s
response (Dkt. No. 15), Luo’s reply (Dkt. No. 18), the District’s motion to dismiss Luo’s
counterclaim (Dkt. No. 16), Luo’s response (Dkt. No. 20), the motion by third-party defendants
Sharon Montayne, Jonathan Riba and Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP’s to dismiss the
third-party complaint (Dkt. No. 19), Luo’s response (Dkt. No. 21), the report and
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Dkt. No. 23),
2

1.

Luo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED.

2.

The District’s motion to dismiss Luo’s counterclaim (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED
and the counterclaim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

Third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED and the
third-party complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Upon consideration of plaintiff Jenn-Chin Luo’s objections to the report and
recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells in Civil Action
No. 15-4248, 3 it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation is APPROVED and
ADOPTED IN PART as follows:
1.

Defendant Montayne’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED and all
claims against Montayne are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

The motion to dismiss by the District, Ball and Schneider (Dkt. No. 7) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a.

b.

3.

Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 6 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Luo’s
re-filing of these claims in a second amended complaint in Civil Action
No. 14-6365.

Civil Action No. 15-4248 shall be marked CLOSED.

Luo’s objections (Dkt. No. 26), third-party defendants’ response to the objections (Dkt. No. 28)
and the District’s response to the objections (Dkt. No. 29).
3

I considered the following documents in making this ruling: the motion to dismiss by
defendant Sharon Montayne (Dkt. No. 5), the motion to dismiss by defendants Geoffrey Ball,
Owen J. Roberts School District and Brian Schneider (Dkt. No. 7), plaintiff Jenn-Chin Luo’s
responses (Dkt. Nos. 10 and 11), the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Dkt. No. 12), plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 15) and
defendants’ responses (Dkt. Nos. 17 and 18).
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Luo shall have thirty days from the date of this order in
which to file a second amended consolidated complaint in Civil Action No. 14-6354 setting forth
all claims not dismissed with prejudice in either Civil Action No. 14-6354 or Civil Action No.
15-4248. Plaintiff shall provide a short and plain statement of her grounds for relief, combining
like claims and including all factual allegations relating to a particular claim within a single
count.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 14-6354 and Civil Action No. 152952 shall be consolidated for administrative purposes. The Clerk shall docket all filings on
these consolidated matters under Civil Action Number 14-6354.

_ /s Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.______
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

4