CARTER et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

Filing 18

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II AND III OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT IS GRANTED BY AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED TH AT COUNTS II AND III ARE DISMISSED FROM PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2008. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT SHALL HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 23, 2009 TO FILE AN ANSWER TO COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/28/09. 9/29/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(er, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS CARTER, III, WILLIAM A. CARTER, CHARLES H. CURRY, ROBERT L. DESROSIERS, STEVEN D. FORMAN, GREGORY P. HEIL, RICHARD E. HEISERMAN, ELLERY F. JOYNES, EDWARD J. KAZLO, STEPHEN I. LYLES, JR., GENERO T. MITCHELL, JR., ROBIN M. MITCHELL, ARTHUR POOLE, JR., EDWARD W. PORTER, THOMAS V. WATERS and IRA T. WATTS, Plaintiffs vs. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 08-cv-05421

ORDER NOW, this 28th day of September, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police on December 18, 2008; upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which response was filed on January 30, 2009; upon consideration of the briefs of the parties1; after oral argument held before the undersigned

O n December 18, 2008 defendant filed a Memorandum of Law of D e f e n d a n t Pennsylvania State Police in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss. On J a n u a r y 30, 2009 plaintiffs filed a brief titled Plaintiffs' Response in O p p o s i t i o n to Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss.

1

on July 7, 2009; and for the reasons articulated in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts II2 and III3 of plaintiffs' complaint is granted by agreement of counsel.4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts II and III are dismissed from plaintiffs' Complaint - Civil Action filed November 17, 2008. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I5 of plaintiffs' complaint is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall have until October 23, 2009 to file an answer to Count I of plaintiffs' Complaint - Civil Action. BY THE COURT: /s/ James Knoll Gardner James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge

C o u n t II of plaintiffs' complaint alleges race discrimination c l a i m s under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981a. C o u n t III of plaintiffs' complaint alleges age discrimination c l a i m s under the Age Discrimination Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634. I n Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to D i s m i s s and accompanying response brief, plaintiffs concede that Counts II and I I I should be dismissed from plaintiffs' complaint because of the immunity c l a u s e of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. C o u n t I of plaintiffs' complaint alleges claims of race d i s c r i m i n a t i o n under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17.
5 4 3

2

-ii-