STOCHEL et al v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS DAUBERT MOTION TO PRECLUDE IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 12/9/15. 12/9/15 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COLLEEN M. BRADLEY
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-2681
WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM
HIGHER EDUCATION et al.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2015, for the reasons stated in the foregoing
memorandum, upon consideration of Defendants’ West Chester University of the Pennsylvania
State System of Higher Education (“West Chester”), the Pennsylvania State System of Higher
Education (“PASSHE”), Mark Mixner (“Mixner”), Lawrence A. Dowdy (“Dowdy”), Dr.
Gregory Weisenstein (“Weisenstein”), Dr. Mark G. Pavlovich (“Pavlovich”), Lois M. Johnson
(“Johnson”), and Ginger Coleman (“Coleman” and, together with Mixner, Dowdy, Weisenstein,
Pavlovich and Johnson, the “Individual Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Dkt. 3), and all responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, as to Count I. Plaintiff’s claims
against West Chester and PASSHE under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants under § 1983 are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to amend. The Court will withhold ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III pending an Amended Complaint. If there is no
Amended Complaint, they will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael M. Baylson
_______________________________
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.
O:\CIVIL 15\15-2681 BRADLEY V. WEST CHESTER\15CV2681.ORDER MTD.DOCX
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?