MINTZ et al v. UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS NORTH BANGOR FIRE COMPANY, FREDERICK FARLEIGH, AND CHRISTOPHER LOUSZKO 6 , THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP AND EDWARD NELSON 8 ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DE NIED IN PART. COUNT I IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY; COUNT II IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO MOVING DEFENDANTS; COUNT III IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO MR. ROMANO; COUNT IV IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE INSOFAR AS IT IS PREMISED ON THE EXISTENCE OF A MUNICIPAL POLICY; COUNT IV IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE INSOFAR AS IT ASSERTS A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST TOWNSHIP; COUNTS II, III, AND IV ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE INSOFAR AS THEY ARE PREMISED ON VIOLATIONS OF TH E FOURTH AMENDMENT; COUNT V IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY; COUNT VI IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY; MRS. MINTZ'S SECTION 1983 CLAIM FOR LOSS OF CONSORIUM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE REMAINDER OF THE COMPLAINT SURVIVES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 6/19/13. 6/20/13 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STUART MINTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UPPER MOUNT BETHEL
TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-6719

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the Motion to
Dismiss of Defendants North Bangor Fire Company, Frederick Farleigh, and Christopher
Louszko (Doc. No. 6), the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Upper Mount Bethel
Township and Edward Nelson (Doc. No. 8), and Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response
thereto (Doc. No. 13), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Count I is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety;
2. Count II is dismissed with prejudice as to Moving Defendants;
3. Count III is dismissed with prejudice as to Mr. Romano;
4. Count IV is dismissed without prejudice insofar as it is premised on the existence
of a municipal policy;
5. Count IV is dismissed with prejudice insofar as it asserts a claim for punitive
damages against Township;
6. Counts II, III, and IV are dismissed without prejudice insofar as they are premised
on violations of the Fourth Amendment;

7. Count V is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety;
8. Count VI is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety;
9. Mrs. Mintz’s § 1983 claim for loss of consortium is dismissed without prejudice;
10. The remainder of the complaint survives.1

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

1

Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order, if they
can in good faith, as to those claims dismissed without prejudice. These claims are factually, not legally, deficient,
and thus a curative amendment would not necessarily be futile. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 24546 (3d Cir. 2008). If Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order, these
claims will be dismissed with prejudice.