DAVIS v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC. et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY 94 IS GRANTED. THE COMMONWEALTH'S REPLY BRIEF IS DEEMED FILED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SURREPLY BRIEF 95 IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY BRIEF IS DEEMED FILED. THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS [40,53 AND 71] ARE GRANTED IN PART. COUNTS 1,2,5 AND 6 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. COUNT 3 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJDICE. COUNT 7 IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE PHILADELPHIA DEFENDANTS. COUNT 7 IS DIS MISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS. COUNT 8 IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE PHILADELPHIA DEFENDANTS, MR. WETZEL, MR. OPPMAN, MR. WENEROWICZ, MS. HARRY AND MR. MOONEY. COUNT 8 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO ALL OTHER DEFEN DANTS. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT 4 IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER, PLAINTIFF MAY FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRECEDING MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 2/9/15. 2/9/15 ENTERED & E-MAILED. COPY MAILED TO UNREP.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER DAVIS
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
14-1490

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the defendants’
motions to dismiss, doc. nos. 40, 53 and 71, plaintiff’s response thereto, doc. nos. 47, 92
and 93, 1 and upon further consideration of the Commonwealth’s motion for leave to file
reply, doc. no. 94, and plaintiff’s motion to file surreply, doc. no. 95, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1.

The Commonwealth’s motion for leave to file a reply, doc. no. 94, is

GRANTED The Commonwealth’s reply brief is deemed filed. Doc. no. 94, 3-8.
2.

Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply brief, doc. no. 95, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s surreply brief, doc. no. 95-1, is deemed filed.
3.
4.

Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 are DISMISSED with prejudice.

5.

1

The motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 40, 53 and 71) are GRANTED in part.

Count 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice.

I have warned plaintiff’s counsel about filing replies without leave. Doc. no. 81. Mr. Davis originally responded to
the Philadelphia defendants’ motion to dismiss on May 2, 2014. Doc. no. 47. He then filed a surreply or
supplemental briefing on October 31. Doc. no. 90. The Philadelphia defendants did not reply, and Mr. Davis did not
seek leave to file the October 31 brief. Therefore, I have not considered Mr. Davis’s surreply.

6.

Count 7 is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the Philadelphia defendants.

Count 7 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all other defendants.
7.

Count 8 is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the Philadelphia defendants,

Mr. Wetzel, Mr. Oppman, Mr. Wenerowicz, Ms. Harry and Mr. Mooney. Count 8 is
DISMISSED without prejudice as to all other defendants.
8.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 4 is DENIED.

9.

Plaintiff’s claims against the Commonwealth defendants acting in their

official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.
10.

Within 14 days of the entry of this order, plaintiff may file a second

amended complaint consistent with the preceding memorandum.
BY THE COURT
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.