BICKLE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ARE DISMISSED; THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFFS� 39; CLAIMS AGAINST THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA ARE DISMISSED IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: A. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST THE ARCHDIOCESE IN COUNT 8 ARE DISMISSED IN PART. THOSE PARTS OF COUNT 8 THAT STATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS BY BICKLE, R.O., AND A.B. A GAINST THE ARCHDIOCESE ARE DISMISSED. THOSE PARTS OF COUNT 8 THAT STATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS BY BICKLE, D.E., R.O., AND A.B. AGAINST THE ARCHDIOCESE, BASED ON THE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, OF OTHER DEFENDANTS, ARE DISMISSED. THIS DECISION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IF WARRANTED BY THE FACTS AND APPLICABLE LAW. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 12/7/16. 12/8/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIELLE BICKLE,
D.E., minor daughter of Danielle Bickle,
R.O., minor son of Danielle Bickle, and
A.B., minor son of Danielle Bickle,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 16-5480
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA,
MILAGROS MARIA BONET,
LOUIS ANTONIO BONET,
LYDIA M. CARABALLO, and
ROLANDO L. MARTINEZ,
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of defendant City of
Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 2, filed October
27, 2016), plaintiffs’ Answer in Opposition to Defendant, City of Philadelphia’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Document No. 6, filed November 10, 2016), defendant
Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Document No. 5,
filed October 28, 2016), and plaintiffs’ Answer in Opposition to Defendant, Archdiocese of
Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Document No. 7, filed November 10,
2016), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum dated December 7, 2016, IT
IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

The City of Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’

claims against the City of Philadelphia are DISMISSED;

2.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and

plaintiffs’ claims against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are DISMISSED IN PART, as
follows:
a.

Plaintiffs’ claims against the Archdiocese for assault and battery in

Counts 4–7 of the Complaint are DISMISSED;
b.

Plaintiffs’ claims against the Archdiocese in Count 8 are DISMISSED

IN PART. Those parts of Count 8 that state negligence claims by Bickle, R.O., and A.B.
against the Archdiocese are DISMISSED. Those parts of Count 8 that state negligence claims
by Bickle, D.E., R.O., and A.B. against the Archdiocese, based on the negligence, if any, of
other defendants, are DISMISSED.1
This decision is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiffs’ right to file and serve an
amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order if warranted by the facts
and applicable law.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

1

The Archdiocese does not seek to dismiss those parts of Count 8 that state negligence claims by
D.E. against the Archdiocese, based on the alleged acts or omissions of the Archdiocese.
Therefore, those claims may proceed.
2