Reed v. Chambersburg Area School District et al

Filing 93

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry. 65 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Chambersburg Area School District Foundation is DENIED AS MOOT. 68 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jason J.A. Reed is DENIED AS MOOT. 79 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jason J.A. Reed is DENIED. 83 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Chambersburg Area School District Foundation is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.) Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 3/17/14. (pw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON J.A. REED,
Plaintiff
v.
CHAMBERSBURG AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT FOUNDATION,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:13-cv-00644

(Judge Kane)

ORDER
AND NOW, on this 17th day of March 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
Defendant Chambersburg Area School District Foundation’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 83) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s equal protection Monell claim (Count One) is not dismissed.

2.

Plaintiff’s due process Monell claim (Count Two) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE to the extent Plaintiff alleges a violation of procedural due process.
To the extent Plaintiff brings a Monell claim related to an alleged substantive due
process violation, it is not dismissed;

3.

Plaintiff First Amendment retaliation Monell claim (Count Three) is not
dismissed;

4.

Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims (Count Four) are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE to the extent Plaintiff alleges trade dress infringement and
contributory trade dress infringement. Plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim
under the Lanham Act is not dismissed;

5.

Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL (Count
Five) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

6.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim (Count Six) is not dismissed to the extent
Plaintiff asserts common law breach of contract and a claim under the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. To the extent Plaintiff asserts
claims under the Equal Pay Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, or the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act, the claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

7.

Plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim (Count Seven) is not dismissed; and

8.

Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim (Count Eight) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
(Doc. No. 79) is DENIED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 65) and Plaintiff’s second motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No.
68) are DENIED AS MOOT.

S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania