Campbell et al v. Balon et al

Filing 110

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The crossclaims filed by Chumley's Bar and Grille and John Berger against the Town of Bloomsburg, Charles Balon, and Kenneth Auchter, ECF No. 64, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The crossclaims filed by the town o f Bloomsburg, Charles Balon, and Kenneth Auchter against Chumley's Bar and Grille and John Berger, ECF No. 68, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. After the resolution of the remaining claims in this case, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Kenneth Auchter on Count XIII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26. (See Order for further details.) Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 3/5/2019. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 4:16-CV-00779

BRUCE M. CAMPBELL and
KIM L. CAMPBELL,

(Judge Brann)
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES BALON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
MARCH 5, 2019
Crossclaims
On February 7, 2019, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Town of Bloomsburg, Charles Balon, and Kenneth Auchter on several claims in
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.1 At that time, the Court ordered the parties to show
cause why it should not grant summary judgment in favor of those Defendants on
all crossclaims brought by and against them. In response, the remaining defendants
withdrew their respective cross claims against one another.2 Those crossclaims will
therefore be dismissed.

1

ECF No. 106.

2

ECF No. 107 ¶ 4; ECF No. 108 ¶ 13.

Plaintiffs’ Civil Assault Claim Against Kenneth Auchter
In its previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court inadvertently
failed to address Mr. Auchter’s motion for summary judgment on Count XIII of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.3
Count XIII alleges that Mr. Auchter’s conduct during Mr. Campbell’s arrest4
constituted the tort of assault. Under Pennsylvania law, however, “[t]he appropriate
standard for determining a [police] officer’s potential liability for assault and battery
when making an arrest is whether excessive or unreasonable force was used in
effectuating that arrest.”5 Because this Court held that Mr. Auchter’s conduct did
not constitute excessive force as a matter of law,6 Plaintiffs’ civil assault claim must
likewise fail.
Whether this Court Should Maintain
Jurisdiction Over the Remaining State Law Claims
In their show cause brief, John Berger and Chumley’s Bar and Grille argue
that this Court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining claims, which are all based on state law.7 This case, however, has been
pending in this Court for nearly three years. Discovery is complete; dispositive

3

Mr. Auchter’s Brief in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 91) at 15-17.

4

See February 7, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 106) at 4-6.

5

Glass v. City of Philadelphia, 455 F. Supp. 2d 302, 366 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

6

February 7, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6.

7

ECF No. 107 ¶ 6-7.

motions have been considered and ruled upon; and all that remains is to set the matter
down for trial.

The Court, therefore, will continue to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.8
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The crossclaims filed by Chumley’s Bar and Grille and John Berger
against the Town of Bloomsburg, Charles Balon, and Kenneth Auchter,
ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 294-96, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

The crossclaims filed by the town of Bloomsburg, Charles Balon, and
Kenneth Auchter against Chumley’s Bar and Grille and John Berger,
ECF No. 68 ¶¶ 297-300, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

After the resolution of the remaining claims in this case, the Clerk of Court
shall enter judgment in favor of Kenneth Auchter on Count XIII of
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
8

See Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pa., 983 F.2d 1277, 1284-85 (3d Cir. 1993)
(indicating that a United States District Court may continue to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 even after the dismissal of all federal
claims); id. (“If the dismissal of the [federal] claim occurs late in the action, knocking [the state
law claims] down with a belated rejection of supplemental jurisdiction may not be fair.”)
(quoting David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary).