HUMPHREYS et al v. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION et al

Filing 34

ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS, PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION AND MICHELLE LAWALL, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS, NORTHAMP TON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING AND BARBARA KLEINTOP, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS, CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PA, POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL IS G RANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; PLAINTIFFS HAVE TWENTY (20) DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH SETS FORTH MORE SPECIFICITY IN COUNTS II, IV, V, AND VI. PLAINTIFFS ARE CAUTIONED THAT IF THEY FAIL TO SET FOR THE REQUIRED SPECIFICITY IN THESE COUNTS, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THESE COUNTS FROM PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED PLEADING, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 11/21/2013. 11/22/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLAINTIFFS AND E-MAILED. (lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA L. HUMPHREYS and BRIAN C.
HUMPHREYS,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-4334

v.
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION,
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, NORTHAMPTON
COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING,
MS. BARBARA KLEINTOP and BETHLEHEM
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st

day of November, 2013, upon consideration of all

pending Motions to Dismiss and Memoranda of Law in Support, upon consideration of
the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum of Law in support,
as well as Plaintiffs’ responses to said motions, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and
Michelle LaWall, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be
Granted (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. Count I of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as to Defendants, PPL Electric
Utilities and Michelle LaWall is DISMISSED with prejudice. Count II of
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as to Defendants, PPL Electric Utilities and
Michelle LaWall is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to
refile a second amended complaint setting forth plausible, factually specific
allegations of negligence as to PPL and LaWall;

3. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, Northampton County Department of
Human Services, Northampton County Area Agency on Aging and Barbara
Kleintop (Docket No. 28), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants, Northampton County Department of
Human Services, Northampton County Area Agency on Aging and Barbara
Kleintop, is GRANTED as to Count III of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
and is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to remove any claims under 18
U.S.C. § 242 from Counts IV, V, VI, X and XI of the Amended Complaint.
The Motion is DENIED as to Counts X and XI;
5. Counts IV, V and VI of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are DISMISSED
without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to refile plausible, factually specific
allegations of § 1983 violations against Northampton County Area Agency on
Aging, Northampton County Department of Human Services and Kleintop.
Count III of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, as well as all claims made
pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 242 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
6. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants, City of Bethlehem,
PA, Police Department, et al (Docket No. 29), is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part;
7. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants, City of Bethlehem,
PA, Police Department, et al is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to dismiss
City of Bethlehem, PA Police Department from this action and GRANTED to
the extent is seeks dismissal of Count IX of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
The remainder of the Motion is DENIED.

2

8. City of Bethlehem, PA Police Department is DISMISSED from this action
with prejudice and Count IX is DISMISSED from Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint with prejudice; and
9. Plaintiffs have twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint which sets
forth more specificity in Counts II, IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs are cautioned that
if they fail to set forth the required specificity in these counts, the Court will
dismiss these counts from Plaintiff’s amended pleading.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.

3