CHAN v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER et al

Filing 74

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HER CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET ARE WITH WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANT DENNIS STUCKET IS DISMISSED FROM THE WITHIN ACTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ("MOTION") IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 6/4/2013. 6/4/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WENDY CHAN
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF LANCASTER;
DENNIS STUCKEY;
SCOTT MARTIN;
CRAIG LEHMAN;
CHARLES E. DOUTS, JR.;
ADREA MCCUE,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 10-cv-03424

O R D E R
NOW, this 4th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of
the following documents:
(1)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed
March 15, 2013 (Document 44), together with
(A)

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 44-2);

(B)

Affidavit of [Defendant] Scott Martin sworn
and notarized on March 15, 2013 (Document 44-2);

(C)

Affidavit of [Defendant] Craig Lehman, sworn
and notarized on March 15, 2013 (Document 44-2);

(D)

Exhibits A through J to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Document 44-2); and

(E)

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document 44-3);

(2)

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Summary
Judgment, which response was filed on April 8,
2013 (Document 46), together with
(A)

(B)

Plaintiff’s Counter[-]Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts (Document 46-2);

(C)

Exhibits A through MM to Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment
(Documents 46-3 through 46-43,
respectively); and

(D)

(3)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of
Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment
(Document 46-1);

Index of Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 46-44);

Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, which reply brief was filed
April 26, 2013 (Document 55), together with
(A)

(B)

(4)

Supplemental Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 55-1)
(“Defendants’ Supplemental Statement of
Facts”); and
Exhibits A through N to Defendants’
Supplemental Statement of Facts (Documents
55-3 through 55-16, respectively);

Plaintiff’s Responses and Supplemental Counter[-]
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, which
response and supplemental statement was filed
May 3, 2013 (Document 58), together with
(A)

[Updated] Index Of Exhibits To Plaintiff’s
Responses In Opposition (Document 58-1); and

(B)

Exhibits NN through RR to Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment
(Documents 58-2 through 58-6, respectively);
and

-ii-

(5)

Second Amended Complaint filed October 17, 2011
(Document 27);

after oral argument held before the undersigned on May 13, 2013;
and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to withdraw her
claims against defendant Dennis Stuckey is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against
defendant Dennis Stuckey are with withdrawn with prejudice, and,
accordingly, defendant Dennis Stuckey is dismissed from the
within action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to
dismiss her equal protection and employment discrimination
claims against defendant Andrea McCue in Counts I and IV of the
Second Amended Complaint is deemed to be a request to amend that
complaint for the purpose of withdrawing those claims, and the
Second Amended Complaint is deemed amended to eliminate those
claims, with prejudice, without further pleading.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Motion”) is granted in part and denied in
part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion is granted to
the extent that it seeks summary judgment on Count III, Count V,
and Count VI of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

-iii-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts III, V, and VI are
dismissed from plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion is granted to
the extent that it seeks summary judgment in favor of defendants
on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims in Count II and
Count IV.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s hostile work
environment claims in Counts II and IV are dismissed from
plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied in all other respects.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ___
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

-iv-