SCHLEIG v. BOROUGH OF NAZARETH et al
OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 8/9/16. 8/10/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOROUGH OF NAZARETH, THOMAS M.
TRACHTA, MAYOR FRED C. DAUGHTERY,
JR., MAYOR CARL R. STRYE, JR., DANIEL
JAMES TROXELL, RANDALL MILLER, PAUL
KOKOLUS, JR., LARRY STOUDT, FRANK
MAUREK, MICHAEL KOPACH, CYNTHIA
WERNER, CHARLES DONELLO, DANIEL
CHIAVAROLI, WILLIAM MATZ, BRIAN F.
REGN, JOHN N. SAMUS, LANCE E.
COLONDO, CHRISTIAN AUDENRIED, and
AND NOW, this
day of August, 2016, upon review of Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in support, Plaintiff’s Response thereto, and
Defendants’ Reply, as well as Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint and Defendant’s Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(Docket No. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. Defendants Mayor Fred C. Daugherty, Jr., Paul Kokolus, Jr., Larry
Stoudt, Frank Maurek, Michael Kopach, Cynthia Werner, Charles Donello, Daniel
Chiavaroli, William Matz, Brian F. Regn, John N. Samus, Lance E. Colondo, Christian
Audenried and Carl Fischl are DISMISSED from this action and all claims against them
are DISMISSED with prejudice;
3. Count IV of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (improperly designated as
the second Count III) is DISMISSED;
4. Count V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (improperly designated as
Count IV) is DISMISSED;
5. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for any events that occurred
prior to August 11, 2013, said events are barred by the applicable statute of limitations;
6. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects;
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(Docket No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
8. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint which contains
paragraphs 39 to 48 and 74 as set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint; and
9. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall not contain paragraphs
89 and 111 to 116 as set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?