Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 108

WINEGAR, WILHELM, GLYNN & ROEMERSMA 305 Roseberry Street P.O. Box 800 Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (908) 454-3200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ________________________________________________________________________

JUNIOR DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, :

and JANE DOE, his parents and

:

natural guardians,

:

Plaintiffs

: Civil No.:

:

vs.

:

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT

:

(a/k/a “The School District of the City of :

Civil Action

Allentown”)

:

and

:

LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. :

and

:

EVA W. HADDON, in her individual

:

COMPLAINT AND

capacity and as Principal

:

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

and

:

BRADLEY CARTER, in his individual :

capacity and as Assistant Principal

:

and

:

DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, in her

:

individual capacity and as Superintendent :

and

:

EVELYN W. ROSSI, in her individual :

capacity and as Director of Human

:

Resources

:

and

:

KAREN J. BOARDMAN, in her individual :

capacity and as Assistant to the

:

Superintendent-Elementary, n/k/a Executive :

Director of Elementary Education

:

and

:

DIANE M. HOLBEN, in her individual :

capacity and as Director of Research,

:

Planning & Accountability

:

and

:

:

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 108

RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual

:

capacity and as Director of Professional & :

Staff Development

:

and

:

RALPH A. DAUBERT, in his individual :

capacity and as Executive Director of

:

Community and Student Services

:

and

:

RALPH S. TODD, in his individual

:

capacity and as Executive Director of

:

Instructional Support Services

:

and

:

DEBORAH HARTMAN, in her individual :

capacity and as Director of Instructional :

Support Services n/k/a Director of Special :

Education

:

and

:

DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, in her

:

individual capacity and as School

:

Psychologist

:

and

:

GERALD BROWN, in his individual

:

capacity and as Teacher

:

and

:

AMY ENRIGHT, in her individual

:

capacity and as Teacher

:

and

:

LORI FRIEBOLIN, in her individual

:

capacity and as Teacher

:

and

:

KIM CECCATTI, in her individual

:

capacity and as Guidance Counselor

:

and

:

CATHERINE BUCKS, in her individual :

capacity and as Teacher

:

and

:

JENNA HEILAND, in her individual

:

capacity and as School Nurse

:

and

:

PEG PERRY, in her individual

:

capacity and as School Nurse

:

and

:

KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, in her

:

individual capacity and as Social Worker :

and

:

F.H., a minor

:

2

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 108

and

:

ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1-5)

:

(fictitious public entities)

:

and

:

THOMAS DOES (1-5)

:

(fictitious names),

:

Defendants.

:

________________________________________________________________________

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, a minor, by John Doe and Jane Doe, his

parents and natural guardians, by and through their undersigned counsel, Scott M. Wilhelm,

Esq., and Blake W. Rush, Esq., who hereby complain of the above-named Defendants as

follows:

I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Junior Doe1, is presently an eight year-old African-American male and

resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lehigh, City of Allentown, who at all

times material hereto was a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary

School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. Plaintiffs, John Doe and

Jane Doe, are, and were at all times mentioned in this Complaint, residents of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lehigh, City of Allentown, and parents and natural

guardians of the minor plaintiff, Junior Doe. John and Jane Doe are named as plaintiffs both

individually and on behalf of their Plaintiff-son, Junior Doe.

2. Defendant, Allentown School District a/k/a The School District of the City of

Allentown, is an entity authorized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of

1 Plaintiff Junior Doe institutes this action under a fictitious name out of concern that his identity may be published in connection with these delicate circumstances, and in order to prevent a risk of publication in the future, Plaintiff will soon seek a Court Order prohibiting any public mention of his true identity in relation to this litigation.
Plaintiff’s identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, due to his privacy rights and protected status as both a minor and rape victim under Pennsylvania common law and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et. seq. Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient details in this Complaint from which the Defendants, all of whom have prior knowledge of the underlying events, will still be able to accurately identify him. Plaintiff’s true identity and present residence will be disclosed to all parties to this litigation pursuant to the Court’s instruction.
3

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 4 of 108
Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 31 South Penn Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102-5409, which entity at all times hereto functioned, under color of state law, as the executive administrative agency responsible for the orderly administration of the schools within the Allentown School District, including, but not limited to, the Central Elementary School, and was the entity responsible for institution of administrative rules regarding the conduct of the schools within the Allentown School District, as well as the implementation of Disciplinary Responses and Procedures to be followed by administrators in the conduct of the day-to-day business of the schools within the Allentown School District, including disciplinary responses, procedures, and implementation of same, which entity at all material times hereto employed all of the Defendants named herein, with the exception of Defendants F.H., a minor, and Lehigh Valley Hospital, and supervised, directed and/or ratified their activities.
3. Defendant, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., is a professional business corporation/organization existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at Interstate 78 and Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105, authorized to provide health care, medical care, social services, and associated treatment through its agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors, all of the same being physicians with various specialties, nurses, social workers, and others, which entity at all material times hereto functioned, under color of state law, as the entity responsible for health care, medical care, social services, and associated treatment within certain schools of the Allentown School District, including, but not limited to, Central Elementary School, which entity at all material times hereto employed, supervised, directed, and/or ratified the activities of its agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors located within certain schools of the Allentown School District, including, but not limited to, Central Elementary School, in furtherance of its business interests.
4

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 5 of 108
4. Defendant, Eva W. Haddon, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto acted in her individual capacity and color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Principal of the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and as Principal was responsible for the daily administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to, implementation and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety, and at all times material hereto was acting within the course and scope of her employment. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Principal of the Central Elementary School.
5. Defendant, Bradley Carter, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto acted in his individual capacity and under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Assistant Principal of the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and as Assistant Principal was responsible for the daily administration of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to implementation and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety, at all times material hereto and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. Suit is brought herein against him as an individual and in his official capacity as the Assistant Principal of the Central Elementary School.
6. Defendant, Dr. Karen S. Angello, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Superintendent for the Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Superintendent within the course and scope of her employment and was acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures within the Allentown School District, having
5

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 6 of 108
overall supervisory responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel, faculty and staff within the Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of, the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Superintendent of the Allentown School District.
7. Defendant, Evelyn W. Rossi, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Human Resources for the Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources within the course and scope of her employment and was acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures within Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of Disciplinary Responses and Procedures by administrative personnel, faculty and staff within the Allentown School District, was responsible for the pre-employment screening, hiring, training, and supervision of administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within the elementary schools of Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Director of Human Resources of the Allentown School District.
8. Defendant, Karen J. Boardman, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, (n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education), for the Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of the law of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policy, including but not
6

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 7 of 108
limited to enforcement of disciplinary procedures within the elementary schools of Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within the elementary schools of Allentown School District, and was responsible for the pre-employment screening, hiring, training, and supervision of administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within the elementary schools of Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, (n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education), for Allentown School District.
9. Defendant, Diane M. Holben, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Research, Planning, and Accountability for the Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Director of Research, Planning, and Accountability and within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures within Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within Allentown School District, and was responsible for the preemployment screening, hiring, training, and supervision of administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Director of Research, Planning, and Accountability for Allentown School District.
7

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 8 of 108
10. Defendant, Rita D. Perez, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Professional and Staff Development for the Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional and Staff Development, and within the course and scope of her employment, and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures within Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within Allentown School District, and was responsible for the pre-employment screening, hiring, training, development, and supervision of administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Director of Professional and Staff Development for Allentown School District.
11. Defendant, Ralph A. Daubert, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Executive Director of Community and Student Services for the Allentown School District, acting in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services and within the course and scope of his employment, and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the design, administration, implementation, and enforcement of Allentown School District safety policies and procedures, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures within Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel, faculty, and staff within the Allentown School District, and was responsible for the training,
8

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 9 of 108
development, and supervision of administrative personnel, faculty and staff within Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against him as an individual and in his official capacity as the Executive Director of Community and Student Services of the Allentown School District.
12. Defendant, Ralph S. Todd, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Executive Director of Instructional Support Services for the Allentown School District, acting in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services and within the course and scope of his employment and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the administration, implementation and enforcement of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures for special education students within the Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel and faculty to special education students within the Allentown School District, and was responsible for the training, development, and supervision of administrative personnel and faculty regarding special education students within Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against him as an individual and in his official capacity as the Executive Director of Instructional Support Services for Allentown School District.
13. Defendant, Deborah Hartman, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Instructional Support Services, (n/k/a Director of Special Education), for Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services and within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of
9

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 10 of 108
the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Allentown School District policy within Allentown School District, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures for special education students within Allentown School District, having overall responsibility for implementation and execution of disciplinary procedures by administrative personnel and faculty to special education students within the Allentown School District, and was responsible for the training, development, and supervision of administrative personnel and faculty regarding special education students within the Allentown School District, and acted in concert with, directed the activities of, and ratified the conduct of the Defendants named herein. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the Director of Instructional Support Services, (n/k/a Director of Special Education), for Allentown School District.
14. Defendant, Dr. Lourdes Sanchez, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto acted in her individual capacity and under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the School Psychologist for the Allentown School District, in particular the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, and as School Psychologist was responsible for the design, implementation, and daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures and responsibility for the care, safety, and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, was responsible for responding to and managing student behavioral problems and district-wide crises; conducting student evaluations and appropriate interventions, including, but not limited to, individual counseling and notification of appropriate law enforcement agencies upon existence and reasonable awareness of dangerous threats to the student population; and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendants named herein
10

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 11 of 108
and others, and at all times material hereto was acting within the course and scope of her employment as School Psychologist at the Central Elementary School for Allentown School District. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as the School Psychologist of the Central Elementary School.
15. Defendant, Gerald Brown, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in his individual capacity and as a Teacher and within the course and scope of his employment as a teacher for the Allentown School District, and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, which included his personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures, and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought herein against him as an individual and in his official capacity as a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
16. Defendant, Amy Enright, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as a Teacher and within the course and scope of her employment as a teacher for the Allentown School District, and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, which included her personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures, and acting
11

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 12 of 108
in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
17. Defendant, Lori Friebolin, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as a Teacher and within the course and scope of her employment as a teacher for the Allentown School District, and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was responsible for the care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, which included her personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures, and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
18. Defendant, Kim Ceccatti, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was a Guidance Counselor for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor and acting within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was responsible for the care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, which included her personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures, and acting in concert
12

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 13 of 108
with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a Guidance Counselor for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
19. Defendant, Catherine Bucks, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as a Teacher within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the care, safety, and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, which included her personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures, and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
20. Defendant, Jenna Heiland, is an adult individual who at times relevant hereto was a School Nurse for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as a School Nurse within the course and scope of her employment and acting under the color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the nursing care of all students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a School Nurse for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
13

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 14 of 108
21. Defendant, Peg Perry, is an adult individual who at times relevant hereto was a School Nurse for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting in her individual capacity and as School Nurse within the course and scope of her employment and acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was responsible for the nursing care of all students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others. Suit is brought against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a School Nurse for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
22. Defendant, Kathleen E. Coughlin, is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was an agent, servant, employee, and/or independent contractor employed by, and/or acting on behalf of Defendants, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., and/or Allentown School District, acting in her individual capacity and as Social Worker within the course and scope of her employment within Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, acting under color of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was responsible for the care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe; the personal, daily enforcement of Allentown School District policy at the Central Elementary School, including but not limited to, disciplinary procedures; responding to and managing student behavioral problems and crises; conducting student evaluations and appropriate interventions, providing individual counseling and notification of appropriate law enforcement agencies upon existence and reasonable awareness of dangerous threats to the student population; and acting in concert with and at the direction of Defendants Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., Allentown School District, Principal, Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others, and was acting within the course and scope
14

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 15 of 108
of her employment. Suit is brought herein against her as an individual and in her official capacity as a Social Worker within Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School.
23. Defendant, F.H.2, a Caucasian minor, is presently a fourteen year-old male and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania currently incarcerated at Harborcreek Youth Services Center, located in the County of Erie, City of Harborcreek, Pennsylvania, who at all times material hereto was a twelve year-old, special education elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
24. Defendants, ABC Public Agencies (1-5) and Thomas Does (1-5), are fictitious public entities and/or individuals to temporarily suffice for the presently unknown identities of other defendant parties, who/which are deemed to include any and all public entities and/or individuals, and who/which may have played any role whatsoever in contributing to the constitutional violations, injuries, and damages as specifically described herein.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25. Since the Plaintiff seeks to enforce his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under federal statutes, jurisdiction of this Court is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction over the state law claims is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as pendent claims. 26. Venue is proper is this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS 27. Plaintiff, Junior Doe, alleges that Defendants individually, jointly, severally, and/or in concert with each other, violated both his constitutional right to bodily integrity under
2 Defendant F.H.’s true identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, due to F.H.’s protected status as a minor under Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act. Plaintiff has supplied sufficient details in this Complaint from which all other Defendants, all of whom have prior knowledge of the underlying events, will still be able to accurately identify Defendant F.H. Defendant F.H.’s true identity and present residence will be disclosed to all other parties to this litigation pursuant to the Court’s instruction.
15

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 16 of 108
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as his constitutional right to the Equal Protection of the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
28. At all times material hereto, and with respect to all actions described herein, the Defendants were acting under color of state law, individually, jointly, severally, and/or in concert with each other, and with color of their authority as officials, employees, agents, servants, and/or independent contractors of the Allentown School District and the Board of School Directors of the School District of the City of Allentown.
29. In 1995, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted into law the Pennsylvania Safe Schools Act, Act 26 of 1995, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et. seq, to address the pervasive problems of violence and weapons possession in Pennsylvania's schools and established the Office of Safe Schools within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. In 1997 and 1999, the Commonwealth enacted legislation, Act 30 and Act 36, respectively, to amend the Pennsylvania Safe Schools Act, thereby further empowering and requiring schools to acquire the tools and resources needed to develop and enhance safe school learning environments.
30. At all times material hereto, Pennsylvania’s Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et. seq, has required all school entities, as defined by the Act, to report to the Office of Safe Schools, “all incidents involving acts of violence…by any person on school property or at school-sponsored events or on school transportation to and from school or school-sponsored activities.”
31. This self-reporting requirement can be fulfilled simply by school districts filing the Annual Report on School Violence and Weapon Possession for each of its school buildings with Office of Safe Schools by July 31 of each year.
16

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 17 of 108
32. At all times material hereto, The Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1303-A, also required each school district to “develop and enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the appropriate local law-enforcement agency to set forth procedures to be followed when an incident involving an act of violence or possession of a weapon by any person occurs on school property”, and that “law enforcement protocols shall be developed in cooperation with local law enforcement and the Pennsylvania State Police.”
33. To assist schools in fulfilling their requirements under and achieving the purposes of Pennsylvania’s Safe School Act, the Office of Safe Schools provides the following services/programs to all schools in Pennsylvania:
(1) Coordination of anti-violence efforts among school, professional, parental, government, law-enforcement, and community organizations and associations; (2) Collection, development, and dissemination of information, policies, strategies and other information to assist schools in their development of programs to impact school violence; (3) Direct training to school employees, parents, law-enforcement officials and communities on effective measures to combat school violence; (4) Advising school entities and nonpublic schools on their development of policies regarding possession of weapons by any person; acts of violence; and protocols for coordination with and reporting to law-enforcement officials and the Department of Education; (5) Development of forms for reporting incidents involving acts of violence and possession of weapons on school property; and (6) Awarding grants to schools to fund programs that address school violence. 34. Moreover, with the enactment of Act 36 in 1999 to the Safe Schools Act came new opportunities for schools to further develop strategies and introduce and expand programs, services and technology to continue improving the safety of their buildings. In addition to the duties and powers previously delegated to the Office of Safe Schools under the Safe Schools Act, beginning in 1999, 24 P.S. § 13-1302-A(c) authorized the Office of Safe Schools “to make
17

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 18 of 108
targeted grants to schools to fund programs which address school violence, including, but not
limited to, the following programs…
(3) Risk assessment, safety-related or violence prevention curricula;
(4) Classroom management;
(5) Student codes of conduct;
(6) Training to undertake a district-wide assessment of risk factors that increase the likelihood of problem behaviors among students;
(7) Development and implementation of research-based violence prevention programs that address risk factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(8) Comprehensive, district-wide school safety and violence prevention plans;
(9) Security planning, purchase of security-related technology which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communications equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts and related technology security planning and purchase of security-related technology shall be based on safety needs identified by the school entity's board of directors;
(11) Establishment or enhancement of school security personnel, including school resource officers; and
(12) Provision of specialized staff and student training programs, including training for student assistance program team members in elementary, middle and high schools in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services, including mental health services...”
35. Additionally, to further address the requirements of the Safe Schools Act, the
Department of Education contracted with the Center for Safe Schools, a statewide clearinghouse
for training, technical assistance, and resources on school safety and violence prevention, which
provides and/or offers the following services/programs to all schools in Pennsylvania:
(1) Training of schools, communities and others on effective measures to prevent violence and promote safety. Provision of statewide, regional and local training on topics ranging from broad administrative issues such as school building safety assessments to specific content and skill building areas such as prevention focused curriculum and implementation of peer mediation programs;
18

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 19 of 108
(2) Providing technical assistance to school districts as they implement the provisions of the Safe Schools Act and other legislation related to violence prevention and school safety;
(3) Collection, development and dissemination of resource information, which assists schools in the development of their programs to address school violence;
(4) Administering the grant funds awarded under the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Safe Schools Initiative to fund school programs addressing school safety and violence prevention; and
(5) Maintaining a resource lending library of over 3500 books, research journals, curricula, other print materials and videos available to educators; maintenance of a Safe Schools website and development of publications, and resources dissemination.
36. Thus, Defendant Allentown School District has been provided with a
comprehensive network of state-funded opportunities and support systems by which they could
have addressed the rising dangers of violence and weapons within their respective schools and
thereby fulfilled the purposes and goals of the Safe Schools Act.
37. At some definitive point in time between December 2003 through March 2004,
Defendant F.H., a then-twelve-year old Caucasian minor, who at all times material hereto was a
student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania,
violently, sexually and indecently assaulted a six-year old, first-grade minority student, Michael Roe I3, in a bathroom stall at Central Elementary School. Upon a second-grade student partially
witnessing the bathroom events and notifying his teacher, the second-grade teacher entered the
bathroom area and found Defendant, F.H., and Michael Roe I in and/or around the same
bathroom stall. Upon questioning Defendant, F.H., as well as a visibly frightened and
traumatized Michael Roe I, the Defendant, F.H., made certain admissions concerning the
3 Michael Roe I’s identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, due to his privacy rights and protected status as both a minor and sexual assault victim under Pennsylvania common law and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et. seq. Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient details in this Complaint from which the Defendants, all of whom have prior knowledge of the underlying events, will still be able to accurately identify Michael Roe I. Michael Roe I’s true identity and present residence will be disclosed to all parties to this litigation pursuant to the Court’s instruction.
19

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 20 of 108
aforesaid events, but ran out of the bathroom against the instruction of the second-grade teacher. Thereupon, the second-grade teacher took the victimized Michael Roe I to Central Elementary School’s main office and the incident was reported at some point in time to Defendants, Principal Eva W. Haddon, Assistant Principal Bradley Carter, Guidance Counselor Kim Ceccatti, Social Worker Kathleen E. Coughlin, and/or School Nurses Jenna Heiland and Peg Perry. All Defendants consciously chose to not contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this violent, sexual and indecent assault. Further, Defendant, F.H., was permitted to remain within the general student population of Central Elementary School.
38. A second incident also occurred at some definitive point in time between December 2003 through March 2004, where Defendant, F.H., once again violently, sexually and indecently assaulted another, different first-grade minority student, Michael Roe II4, in a bathroom area at Central Elementary School. Upon a first-grade teacher witnessing Michael Roe II hastily running out of the bathroom with unfastened and lowered pants, the teacher immediately approached Michael Roe II to assist him. Thereupon, Michael Roe II described the violent sexual and indecent assault he had just suffered and identified Defendant, F.H., as the attacker. The first-grade teacher immediately took this second victimized child and Defendant, F.H., to Central Elementary School’s main office, whereby this second incident was also reported at some point in time to Defendants, Principal Eva W. Haddon, Assistant Principal Bradley Carter, Guidance Counselor Kim Ceccatti, Social Worker Kathleen E. Coughlin, and/or School Nurses Jenna Heiland and Peg Perry. Although, Defendants conducted some questioning
4 Michael Roe II’s identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, due to his privacy rights and protected status as both a minor and sexual assault victim under Pennsylvania common law and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et. seq. Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient details in this Complaint from which the Defendants, all of whom have prior knowledge of the underlying events, will still be able to accurately identify Michael Roe II. Michael Roe II’s true identity and present residence will be disclosed to all parties to this litigation pursuant to the Court’s instruction.
20

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 21 of 108
concerning this incident over the next several weeks, Defendants, once again, consciously chose to not contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this second violent, sexual and indecent assault involving Defendant F.H. and he was still permitted to remain with the general student population of Central Elementary School.
39. For a third time and also occurring at some definitive point in time between December 2003 through March 2004, Defendant, F.H., violently, sexually and indecently assaulted, or attempted to assault, a third first-grade minority student, Michael Roe III5, this time in a cafeteria bathroom at Central Elementary School. Upon the mother of student Michael Roe III subsequently bringing her child into school at some later point in time and notifying the child’s first-grade teacher of this violent sexual and indecent assault, the visibly terrified and traumatized Michael Roe III identified Defendant, F.H., as the attacker, and the first-grade teacher quickly notified Defendant Assistant Principal Bradley Carter. Thereupon, Defendant Assistant Principal Bradley Carter took this third victimized child and his mother to Central Elementary School’s main office, whereby this third incident was also reported at some point in time to Defendants, Principal Eva W. Haddon, Guidance Counselor Kim Ceccatti, Social Worker Kathleen E. Coughlin, and/or School Nurses Jenna Heiland and Peg Perry. Thereafter, despite the follow-up inquiries of Michael Roe III’s first-grade teacher, Defendants ordered the firstgrade teacher to not get involved, whereby the Defendants once again consciously chose to not contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this third violent, sexual and indecent assault involving Defendant, F.H., and Defendant, F.H., was still permitted to remain with the general student population of Central Elementary School.
5 Michael Roe III’s identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, due to his privacy rights and protected status as both a minor and sexual assault victim under Pennsylvania common law and the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et. seq. Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient details in this Complaint from which the Defendants, all of whom have prior knowledge of the underlying events, will still be able to accurately identify Michael Roe III. Michael Roe III’s true identity and present residence will be disclosed to all parties to this litigation pursuant to the Court’s instruction.
21

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 22 of 108
40. As a direct result of Allentown School District’s and/or its administrators, officials, agents, servants, workmen, independent contractors, and/or employees’ deliberate indifference, failure to punish, remove, and/or report the known student perpetrator, Defendant F.H., to local law enforcement agencies, when Defendant F.H. was known by Defendants herein for at least over four (4) months to have violently, sexually and indecently assault innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, an atmosphere of unabated violence, by a serial violent sexual predator in particular, rendered Central Elementary School a completely unsafe environment for the activities for which it was intended and regularly used as of March 16, 2004, and which deliberate indifference was substantially certain to result in the violent, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of then six year-old Plaintiff, Junior Doe, on March 16, 2004 by Defendant F.H., which has left Plaintiff with permanent damages as shall be fully set forth below.
41. The acts and/or omissions constituting deliberate indifference and blatant disregard of the law by Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., through its administrators, officials, servants, workmen, agents, independent contractors, and/or employees, to the continued unfettered violent and sexual attacks at Central Elementary School that directly resulted in Allentown School District’s failure to address grave security and safety problems at Central Elementary School, include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) failure to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas; (2) failure to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
22

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 23 of 108
(3) failure to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failure to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failure to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that addresses risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failure to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and related technology;
(7) failure to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) the specific failure to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) the specific failure to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School;…
23

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 24 of 108
all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H., systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon innocent students, including the rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on March 16, 2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population.
42. Specifically, for a period of at least four (4) months prior to March 16, 2004, Defendant F.H. had committed unfettered targeting of innocent students within unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School utilizing his same modus operandi previously known to the Defendants of forcibly entering occupied bathroom stalls, imprisoning, removing the pants of, and violently sexually assaulting the innocent student.
43. During this four (4) month period of time prior to March 16, 2004, at all times material hereto Defendants, Eva W. Haddon, Principal of the Central Elementary School; Bradley Carter, Assistant Principal; Dr. Lourdes Sanchez, School Psychologist; Kathleen E. Coughlin, Social Worker, Jenna Heiland, School Nurse; Peg Perry, School Nurse, Gerald Brown, Teacher, Amy Enright, Teacher, Lori Friebolin, Teacher, and Catherine Bucks, Teacher, performed their job duties involving the supervision, discipline, monitoring, and/or provision of medical care, social services, and associated treatment to students at the School.
44. During this four (4) month period prior to March 16, 2004, at all times material hereto, Defendants, Dr. Karen S. Angello, who functioned as Superintendent of Allentown School District; Evelyn W. Rossi, Director of Human Resources; Karen J. Boardman, Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary; Diane M. Holben, Director of Professional & Staff Development; Ralph A. Daubert, Executive Director of Community and Student Services, Ralph S. Todd, Executive Director of Instructional Support Services, and Deborah Hartman, Director of
24

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 25 of 108
Instructional Support Services, acted individually and/or through their agents, servants, workmen, independent contractors, and/or employees, as well as under color of state law and authority in performing their job duties and administering to the duties of their respective offices.
45. For four (4) months prior to March 16, 2004 and at times material hereto, as referenced above a known individual, Defendant, F.H., continued to target and violently, sexually and indecently assault innocent students at the Central Elementary School, and continued to conduct this unfettered brutality inasmuch and at least as for this four (4) month period of time prior to March 16, 2004, there was never any reasonable coordinated effort within, by, or amongst the identified Defendants as referenced above to remove, isolate, or discipline the known Defendant, F.H., secure or monitor the bathroom areas where the incidents of violence repeatedly occurred, accurately or routinely memorialize the violent incidents via accurate medical records and/or security reports, report or communicate the subject repeated prior incidents to the City of Allentown Police Department and/or School District Allentown Police Liaison, or make any reasonable effort to halt the continued violent and sexual assaults which occurred within the confines of the Central Elementary School.
46. In deliberate indifference to the known, clear and continuing present danger that Defendant F.H. continued to present to the student population within the Central Elementary School, in particular the much younger, first and second-grade classes from which all of the presently-known victims were enrolled in, the Defendants herein failed to take any reasonable measures whatsoever to curtail Defendant, F.H.’s, continued unfettered acts of violence, and as a consequence, an atmosphere of continued systematic violence by the Defendant, F.H., continued to exist at the Central Elementary School, which atmosphere of unabated violence provided a safe haven for continued criminal sexual assaults against innocent students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, which chaotic atmosphere expectedly flourished and was certain to culminate in
25

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 26 of 108
additional brutal, sexual and violent assaults within the confines of the unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms of the Central Elementary School.
47. It was under theses circumstances as referenced above that Plaintiff, Junior Doe, attended the Central Elementary School, as an intellectually gifted and promising, first-grade student on March 16, 2004.
48. On or about March 16, 2004, shortly before a 1 p.m. early school dismissal and in the same type of unsecured, unmonitored, and security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School where twelve-year old male student Defendant F.H. had previously sexually assaulted other innocent first-grade male minority students during the previous four (4) months, Defendant F.H. once again attacked another first-grade male minority student, utilizing his same modus operandi previously known to the Defendants of forcibly entering occupied bathroom stalls, imprisoning and removing the pants of his victim, whereby F.H. violently raped and indecently assaulted six year-old male Plaintiff, Junior Doe, about the buttocks, anus, and genital region in a lower-level bathroom stall at Central Elementary School.
49. Immediately prior to his violent rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe, twelve year-old Defendant, F.H., was sitting in detention supervised by Defendant Teacher Gerald Brown, located in a hallway: (a) directly adjoining the lower-level bathroom area where the brutal rape and indecent assault in question took place, and (b) on the same secluded floor in Central Elementary School which only housed lower-level, kindergarten, first, and second-grade classes.
50. Upon Plaintiff, Junior Doe, notifying his first-grade teacher, Defendant Catherine Bucks, of the violent, sexual and indecent assault he had just suffered, Ms. Bucks failed to either: (a) report the incident to school administrators, officials, and/or employees, or (b) even take the Plaintiff to the nurse’s office for medical examination and/or treatment. Instead, Defendant
26

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 27 of 108
Catherine Bucks just dismissed the Plaintiff, Junior Doe, along with his entire class at approximately 1:05 p.m., without even notifying the Plaintiff’s father, John Doe, who had been waiting in the school cafeteria to pick his son up after dismissal. Defendant Catherine Buck’s actions and/or omissions are wholly consistent with a pattern of deceit at the Central Elementary School in veiling the known, continued, unabated sexual assaults by Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months.
51. Upon being released to his father who was waiting in the school cafeteria, Plaintiff Junior Doe informed his father of the attack he had just suffered, and Plaintiff’s father, John Doe, thereby located Defendant Catherine Bucks for questioning and subsequently proceeded to the Central Elementary School main office with his victimized child in order to report the violent incident himself to Defendant Principal Eva W. Haddon shortly thereafter. While at the main office and in the presence of Defendants Ms. Haddon and Ms. Bucks, Plaintiff Junior Doe once again described the attack and the perpetrator, whereby Defendant F.H., who was still on school premises for unrelated reasons, was finally escorted by school officials to the main office and then positively identified by Plaintiff Junior Doe as being the perpetrator.
52. Next, Defendant Eva W. Haddon consciously declined to call local law enforcement herself and explicitly told Plaintiff, John Doe, he could call the police himself if he so desired. Thereupon, Plaintiff’s father, John Doe, contacted the City of Allentown Police Department from a phone within the school building and detectives arrived at Central Elementary School soon after. Upon arrival, the police detectives interviewed several individuals, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and Defendant, F.H., whereby pursuant to police instruction, Plaintiff, John Doe, then transported his injured six year-old son, Junior Doe, to Lehigh Valley Hospital for examination, treatment, and collection of forensic evidence.
27

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 28 of 108
53. Occurring at some later point in time between the incident that occurred on or about March 16, 2004 and through July 2004, Defendant F.H. was formally arrested and subsequently adjudicated delinquent of rape, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault, for this March 16, 2004 attack of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, whereby the then-twelve year-old Defendant, F.H., was sentenced by a Lehigh County Family Court Judge to Harborcreek Youth Services Center, located in the County of Erie, City of Harborcreek, Pennsylvania 16421, until he at least reaches the age of eighteen (18).
54. As outlined above, the Defendants as named above fostered an atmosphere of unabated violence by providing a safe haven for continued, known, criminal sexual assaults by Defendant, F.H., against innocent students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in which said chaotic atmosphere expectedly flourished and was certain to culminate in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, within the confines of a unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom in the Central Elementary School on or about March 16, 2004.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct herein, the Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life
28

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 29 of 108
expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
58. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
29

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 30 of 108
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY
JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPTIAL, INC.
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity and as Principal
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity and as Assistant Principal
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity and as Superintendent
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources
KAREN BOARDMAN in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity and as Director of Research Planning & Accountability
RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional & Staff Development
RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services
DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services, n/k/a
Director of Special Education DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity and as School Psychologist
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity and as Teacher
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity and as Teacher
30

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 31 of 108
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity and as Teacher
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor
CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity and as Teacher
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity and as School Nurse
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity and as School Nurse,
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN in her individual capacity and as Social Worker,
ABC AGENCIES (1-5) (fictitious public entities) THOMAS DOES (1-5)
(fictitious names), Defendants
60. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint
as if set forth herein this First Count.
61. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants either in or at the supervision,
direction, approval, acceptance, and ratification of, or in concert with, the conduct and activities
of the Defendants named herein, and in regard to the safety of students within the Central
Elementary School, were responsible for medical care, social services, and associated treatment
of said students, as well as the implementation and enforcement of the Disciplinary Responses
and Procedures at the Central Elementary School.
62. The malicious actions of the Defendants were undertaken in bad faith, in
deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right
to Bodily Integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article I, § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, in that these Defendants:
(a) in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s,
constitutional right to bodily integrity, concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Central
31

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 32 of 108
Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of students within the Central Elementary School such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant , F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report to the City of Allentown Police Department, or any other law enforcement agency, the repeated incidents of sexual assaults committed by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(f) intentionally and recklessly failed to: (i) memorialize, file, and/or report the accurate number of violent incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, as listed in the Annual Report of School Violence and Weapons Possession regarding repeated acts of violence against other innocent Central Elementary School students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, (ii) summon the police or emergency medical services, (iii) provide reasonably appropriate and
32

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 33 of 108
necessary medical treatment, or (iv) accurately document the injuries suffered by student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals, for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(g) intentionally and recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report to school authorities or to the City of Allentown Police Department, the repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least twenty (20) months, such as the incidents of Michael Roes I, II, & III as referenced herein;
(h) recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for students’ Constitutional Rights to Bodily Integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, an environment of unabated violence that continued in certain problematic schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, including, but not limited to, the incident referenced herein involving Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(i) intentionally and recklessly failed to suspend, isolate, and/or remove a known, serial, sexual predator, Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., from the school environment when the Defendants knew of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against other Central Elementary School students for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an environment of student criminal activity and violence against other students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(j) permitted a known student, Defendant F.H., to remain on school premises when Defendants knew that said student presented a clear and present danger to the other students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(k) intentionally and recklessly failed to accurately memorialize the acts of violence committed by known students at certain Allentown School District schools, including Defendant,
33

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 34 of 108
F.H., or the injuries sustained by students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain problematic schools within the Allentown School District;
(l) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant, F.H., at the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(m) intentionally and recklessly, in deliberate and in callous disregard of the Constitutional Rights to Bodily Integrity of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to student victims of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
(o) repeatedly, intentionally, and recklessly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within the Central Elementary School, conduct certain
34

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 35 of 108
to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(p) covered-up acts of repeated violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment directly resulting in continued, unabated, acts of violence by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, and presenting a clear and present danger to innocent students;
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for over twenty (20) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Central Elementary School student Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-standing violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and state scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults on innocent students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(s) intentionally, recklessly, and deliberately failed to and/or refused to enforce the Central Elementary School disciplinary responses and procedures protocol pursuant to the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct to identify, report, punish, and remove
35

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 36 of 108
known student perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant, F.H., for a period
of at least four (4) months, thereby rendering the Central Elementary School unsafe for the
activities for which it was intended and generally used, and for which sovereign immunity will
not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8542(b)(3);
(t) intentionally, recklessly, and in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of
violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central
Elementary School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security
and safety problems at such schools by:
(1) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(2) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors in effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and/or related technology;
(7) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators,
36

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 37 of 108
employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School…
all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H.,
systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon students,
including the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on March 16,
2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central
Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation
from the general school population;
(u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by known Central
Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to
report the incidents of sexual assaults to the City of Allentown Police Department, despite
having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other
Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or
workmen;
37

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 38 of 108
(v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the daily affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the constitutional violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s rights as referenced above;
(w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and /or independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to protect the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights amounting to a deliberate indifference to, and callous disregard for, the rights of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in particular the Right to Bodily Integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain problematic schools, including the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within certain Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Right to Bodily Integrity guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
63. All of the aforesaid acts and knowledge of the acts of the other Defendants, caused, directed, approved, and ratified the aforesaid acts which constitute violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred
38

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 39 of 108
and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of individuals of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
66. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand judgment against the Defendants for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
39

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 40 of 108
(b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants
(c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, acts and omissions
complained of herein are unconstitutional;
(d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein;
(e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and
(f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
AGE DISCRIMINATION
JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity and as Principal
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity and as Assistant Principal
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity and as Superintendent
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources
KAREN BOARDMAN in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity and as Director of Research Planning & Accountability
RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional & Staff Development
40

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 41 of 108
RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services
DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services, n/k/a
Director of Special Education DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity and as School Psychologist
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity and as Teacher
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity and as Teacher
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity and as Teacher
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor
CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity and as Teacher
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity and as School Nurse
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity and as School Nurse,
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN in her individual capacity and as Social Worker,
ABC AGENCIES (1-5) (fictitious public entities) THOMAS DOES (1-5)
(fictitious names), Defendants
69. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Complaint
as if set forth herein this Second Count.
70. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants either in or at the supervision,
direction, approval, acceptance, and ratification of, or in concert with the conduct and activities
of the Defendants named herein, and in regard to the safety of students within the Central
Elementary School were responsible for medical care, social services, and associated treatment
41

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 42 of 108
of said students, as well as the implementation and enforcement of the Disciplinary Responses and Procedures at the Central Elementary School.
71. Pursuant to Article III, § 14, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has expressly created a right to public education for its citizens, whereby the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, guarantees every child of school age in Pennsylvania the right to such an education free from age discrimination with equal opportunities, privileges, and access to the benefits and services therein provided.
72. The Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct states that it “was adopted to promote a safe and orderly school environment where learning can occur”, and states that “school discipline is central to the educational process,” and that “effective learning cannot occur in an unsafe environment.”
73. Pursuant to the “Classification of Student Misconduct” found in the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct, “Level IV Infractions” consist of “criminal acts, which pose a threat to the safety of others in the school”, and specifically include, but are not limited to, student assaults, reckless endangerment, sexual assaults and/or indecent exposure.
74. Furthermore, pursuant to the “Classification of Student Misconduct” found in the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct, “Level IV Consequences” are assigned by an Administrator and require that: (a) the infraction must result in a suspension of up to ten days; (b) the infraction must become part of the student’s discipline record; (c) the offending student must be immediately removed from his school assignment; (d) parents must be notified in writing of the infraction; (e) all violations of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code must be reported to the police; (f) Level IV infractions in Elementary Schools involving students under the age of ten
42

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 43 of 108
must be reported to the Office of Children and Youth Services; and (g) students may only return to their regular classroom setting after a readmission conference with a building administrator and a parent/guardian.
75. The malicious, irrational, conspiratorial actions of the Defendants were undertaken in bad faith, in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, whereby the unwritten policy, practice, or custom of the Defendants discriminatorily and/or selectively denying students who attended elementary schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School and in particular Plaintiff Junior Doe, equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures actually afforded similarly situated students who attended upper-grade level schools within Allentown School District, in that these Defendants:
(a) in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard to Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection not be subject to age discrimination, concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of students within the Central Elementary School such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic
43

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 44 of 108
violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant , F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report to the City of Allentown Police Department, or any other law enforcement agency, the repeated incidents of sexual assaults committed by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(f) intentionally and recklessly failed to: (i) memorialize, file, and/or report the accurate number of violent incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, as listed in the Annual Report of School Violence and Weapons Possession regarding repeated acts of violence against other innocent Central Elementary School students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, (ii) summon the police or emergency medical services, (iii) provide reasonably appropriate and necessary medical treatment for, or (iv) accurately document the injuries suffered by student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals, for a period of at least four (4) months;
(g) intentionally and recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report to school authorities or the City of Allentown Police Department, the repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, such as the incidents involving innocent victims Michael Roe I, II, & III as referenced herein;
(h) recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for all students’ Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, an
44

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 45 of 108
environment of unabated violence that continued in certain problematic schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months, including, but not limited to, the incident referenced herein involving Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(i) intentionally and recklessly failed to suspend, isolate, and/or remove a known, serial, sexual predator, Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., from the school environment when the Defendants knew of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against other Central Elementary School students for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an environment of student criminal activity and violence against other innocent students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(j) permitted a known student, Defendant F.H., to remain on school premises when Defendants knew that said student presented a clear and present danger to the other innocent students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(k) intentionally and recklessly failed to accurately memorialize the acts of violence committed by known students at certain Allentown School District schools, including Defendant, F.H., or the injuries sustained by students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain problematic schools within Allentown School District;
(l) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant, F.H., at the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months;
45

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 46 of 108
(m) intentionally and recklessly, in deliberate and in callous disregard of the Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to student victims of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
(o) repeatedly, intentionally, and recklessly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within the Central Elementary School, conduct certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(p) covered up acts of repeated violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment directly resulting in continued, unabated, acts of violence by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, and presenting a clear and present danger to innocent students;
46

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 47 of 108
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Central Elementary School student Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-standing violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and state scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults on innocent students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(s) intentionally, recklessly, and deliberately failed to and/or refused to enforce the Central Elementary School disciplinary responses and procedures protocol as per the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct to identify, report, punish, and remove known student perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby rendering the Central Elementary School unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used, and for which sovereign immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542(b)(3);
(t) intentionally, recklessly, and in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security and safety problems at such schools by:
47

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 48 of 108
(1) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(2) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and/or related technology;
(7) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant
48

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 49 of 108
F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School… all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H., systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon students, including the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on March 16, 2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population; (u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to report the incidents of sexual assaults to the City of Allentown Police Department, despite having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or workmen; (v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the day-to-day affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the constitutional violations of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s rights as referenced above; (w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to protect the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights amounting to a deliberate indifference to, and callous disregard for, the rights of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in particular the right to Equal Protection under
49

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 50 of 108
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain problematic schools, including the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within certain Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
76. This denial and/or deprivation of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures occurred prior to, during the time of, and/or after it was known or reasonably suspected by the Defendants that for a period at least four (4) months, Defendant, F.H, had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School.
77. Plaintiff Junior Doe was, at all times material hereto, a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School which had a lower overall student-age population than upper-grade level schools within Allentown School District, whereby Plaintiff Junior Doe was a member of the class that was subjected to the discriminatory enforcement and/or denial of protective services, procedures, and/or policies as described herein.
78. The protective services, policies, and procedures selectively denied and/or deprived to elementary schools within the Allentown School District, in particular Central Elementary School, but afforded to certain schools within the district having upper-grade level
50

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 51 of 108
student populations, include, but are not limited to: (a) an adequate assessment and remedying of school building safety; (b) consistent enforcement of the Allentown School District Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence; (c) establishment of school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers; (d) specific and/or consistent notification or reporting to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation any and all known or reasonably suspected sexual or violent assaults that have occurred on school property; and (e) the adequate supervision, isolation, and/or removal of students, such as Defendant, F.H., who have previously committed sexual or violent assaults against other students on school property.
79. When administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel at certain upper-grade level schools within Allentown School District, such as the William Allen High School, Louis E. Dieruff High School, and Trexler Middle School were made aware of known or reasonably suspected acts of violence or sexual assaults, those Allentown School District administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel at those respective schools consistently enforced the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting procedures and protocols to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence, and in addition, also employed a wide range of protective services afforded to students by the Allentown School District as referenced in Paragraph 78 above, .
80. In denying equivalent protective services, policies, procedures, notification, and/or subsequent law enforcement investigation for known allegations and/or occurrences of violent and sexual assaults, Defendants displayed deliberate, reckless indifference toward the Central Elementary School students’ Equal Protection Rights, including those rights of Plaintiff Junior Doe, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
51

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 52 of 108
and under Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
81. The denial and/or deprivation of such equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures to the students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, was not rationally related to any legitimate government interest or objective, given that Defendant, F.H, had previously committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School for a period at least four (4) months, whereby such continued, deliberately indifferent denials of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures at Central Elementary School was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, at Central Elementary School on March 16, 2004.
82. Defendant’s failure to provide equivalent protective services, policies, and procedures to Central Elementary School students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as provided for in the Allentown School Districts’ official disciplinary policies, responses, procedures, code of conduct, and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures, and as afforded to older students similarly situated at upper-grade level schools within the Allentown School District, hereby violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is a form of age discrimination.
83. The selective, discriminatory practices of the Defendants have resulted in and continue to result in the purposeful violation of Central Elementary School students’ equal protection rights, including those rights of Plaintiff Junior Doe, because of those students’ younger ages and lower respective grade levels in comparison to similarly situated, older students at upper grade-level schools within the Allentown School District.
52

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 53 of 108
84. At all times relevant hereto through the aforesaid acts and knowledge of the acts of the other Defendants, caused, directed, approved, and ratified the aforesaid acts which constitute violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights.
85. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
86. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
87. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
88. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
53

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 54 of 108
89. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs
will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or
physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand
judgment against the Defendants for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
(b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants.
(c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional;
(d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein;
(e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and
(f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS DISCRIMINATION
JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity and as Principal
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity and as Assistant Principal
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity and as Superintendent
54

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 55 of 108
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources
KAREN BOARDMAN in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity and as Director of Research Planning & Accountability
RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional & Staff Development
RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services
DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services, n/k/a
Director of Special Education DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity and as School Psychologist
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity and as Teacher
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity and as Teacher
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity and as Teacher
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor
CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity and as Teacher
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity and as School Nurse
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity and as School Nurse,
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN in her individual capacity and as Social Worker,
ABC AGENCIES (1-5) (fictitious public entities) THOMAS DOES (1-5)
(fictitious names), Defendants
55

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 56 of 108
90. Plaintiffs’ repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Third Count.
91. The malicious, irrational, conspiratorial actions of the Defendants were undertaken in bad faith, in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, whereby the unwritten policy, practice, or custom of the Defendants discriminatorily and/or selectively denying students who attended schools with predominantly or significantly lower overall socioeconomic status within the Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School and in particular Plaintiff Junior Doe, of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures actually afforded similarly situated students who attended schools with a predominantly or significantly higher overall socio-economic status within Allentown School District, in that these Defendants:
(a) in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard to Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right to Equal Protection to be subject to socio-economic discrimination, concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
56

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 57 of 108
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of students within the Central Elementary School such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant , F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report to the City of Allentown Police Department, or any other law enforcement agency, the repeated incidents of sexual assaults committed by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(f) intentionally and recklessly failed to: (i) memorialize, file, and/or report the accurate number of violent incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, as listed in the Annual Report of School Violence and Weapons Possession regarding repeated acts of violence against other innocent Central Elementary School students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, (ii) summon the police or emergency medical services, (iii) provide reasonably appropriate and necessary medical treatment for, or (iv) accurately document the injuries suffered by student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals, for a period of at least four (4) months;
(g) intentionally and recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report to school authorities or the City of Allentown Police Department, the repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, such as the incidents involving innocent victims Michael Roe I, II, & III as referenced herein;
57

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 58 of 108
(h) recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for all students’ Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, an environment of unabated violence that continued in certain problematic schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months, including, but not limited to, the incident referenced herein involving Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(i) intentionally and recklessly failed to suspend, isolate, and/or remove a known, serial, sexual predator, Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., from the school environment when the Defendants knew of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against other Central Elementary School students for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an environment of student criminal activity and violence against other innocent students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(j) permitted a known student, Defendant F.H., to remain on school premises when Defendants knew that said student presented a clear and present danger to the other innocent students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(k) intentionally and recklessly failed to accurately memorialize the acts of violence committed by known students at certain Allentown School District schools, including Defendant, F.H., or the injuries sustained by students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain problematic schools within Allentown School District;
(l) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant, F.H., at the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from
58

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 59 of 108
public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months;
(m) intentionally and recklessly, in deliberate and in callous disregard of the Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to student victims of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
(o) repeatedly, intentionally, and recklessly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within the Central Elementary School, conduct certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(p) covered up acts of repeated violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment directly resulting in continued, unabated, acts of violence by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant
59

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 60 of 108
F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, and presenting a clear and present danger to innocent students;
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Central Elementary School student Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-standing violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and state scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults on innocent students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(s) intentionally, recklessly, and deliberately failed to and/or refused to enforce the Central Elementary School disciplinary responses and procedures protocol as per the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct to identify, report, punish, and remove known student perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby rendering the Central Elementary School unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used, and for which sovereign immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8542(b)(3);
(t) intentionally, recklessly, and in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central
60

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 61 of 108
Elementary School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security
and safety problems at such schools by:
(1) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(2) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and related technology;
(7) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured,
61

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 62 of 108
unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and (10) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School… all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H., systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon students, including the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on March 16, 2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population; (u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to report the incidents of sexual assaults to the City of Allentown Police Department, despite having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or workmen; (v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the day-to-day affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the constitutional violations of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s rights as referenced above; (w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to
62

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 63 of 108
protect the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights amounting to a deliberate indifference to, and callous disregard for, the rights of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in particular the right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain problematic schools, including the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within certain Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, §1 and §26 if the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
92. This denial and/or deprivation of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures occurred prior to, during the time of, and/or after it was known or reasonably suspected by the Defendants that for a period at least four (4) months, Defendant, F.H, had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School.
93. Plaintiff Junior Doe was, at all times material hereto, a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School which had a lower overall socio-economic student population than other schools within Allentown School District, whereby Plaintiff Junior Doe was a member of the class that was subjected to the discriminatory enforcement and/or denial of protective services, procedures, and/or policies as described herein.
63

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 64 of 108
94. The protective services, policies, and procedures selectively denied and/or deprived to schools who had a lower overall socio-economic student population within the Allentown School District, in particular Central Elementary School, but afforded to certain other schools within the district having a higher overall socio-economic student populations, include, but are not limited to: (a) an adequate assessment and remedying of school building safety; (b) consistent enforcement of the Allentown School District Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence; (c) establishment of school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers; (d) specific and/or consistent notification or reporting to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation any and all known or reasonably suspected sexual or violent assaults that have occurred on school property; and (e) the adequate supervision, isolation, and/or removal of students, such as Defendant, F.H., who have previously committed sexual or violent assaults against other students on school property.
95. When administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel at certain other schools within Allentown School District, such as the William Allen High School, Louis E. Dieruff High School, Trexler Middle School, Muhlenberg Elementary School, and Lehigh Parkway Elementary School, were made aware of known or reasonably suspected acts of violence or sexual assaults, those Allentown School District administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel at those respective schools consistently enforced the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting procedures and protocols to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence, and in addition, also employed a wide range of protective services afforded to students by the Allentown School District as referenced in Paragraph 94 above, .
64

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 65 of 108
96. In denying equivalent protective services, policies, procedures, notification, and/or subsequent law enforcement investigation for known allegations and/or occurrences of violent and sexual assaults, Defendants displayed deliberate, reckless indifference toward the Central Elementary School students’ Equal Protection Rights, including those rights of Plaintiff Junior Doe, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
97. The denial and/or deprivation of such equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures to the students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, was not rationally related to any legitimate government interest or objective, given that Defendant, F.H, had previously committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School for a period at least four (4) months, whereby such continued, deliberately indifferent denials of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures at Central Elementary School was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, at Central Elementary School on March 16, 2004.
98. Defendant’s failure to provide equivalent protective services, policies, and procedures to Central Elementary School students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as provided for in the Allentown School Districts’ official disciplinary policies, responses, procedures, code of conduct, and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures, and as afforded to students similarly situated at certain other schools within the Allentown School District, hereby violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is a form of socio-economic discrimination.
65

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 66 of 108
99. The selective, discriminatory practices of the Defendants have resulted in and continue to result in the purposeful violation of Central Elementary School students’ equal protection rights, including those rights of Plaintiff Junior Doe, because of those students’ lower overall socio-economic status in comparison to similarly situated students at certain other schools within the Allentown School District.
100. At all times relevant hereto through the aforesaid acts and knowledge of the acts of the other Defendants, caused, directed, approved, and ratified the aforesaid acts which constitute violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights.
101. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, , Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
102. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
103. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
66

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 67 of 108
104. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand judgment against the Defendants for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants. (c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional; (d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein; (e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
67

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 68 of 108
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity and as Principal
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity and as Assistant Principal
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity and as Superintendent
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources
KAREN BOARDMAN in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, n/k/a Executive Director of Elementary Education
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity and as Director of Research Planning & Accountability
RITA D. PEREZ in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional & Staff Development
RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services
DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services, n/k/a
Director of Special Education DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity and as School Psychologist
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity and as Teacher
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity and as Teacher
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity and as Teacher
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor
CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity and as Teacher
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity and as School Nurse
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity and as School Nurse,
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN
68

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 69 of 108
in her individual capacity and as Social Worker, ABC AGENCIES (1-5) (fictitious public entities) THOMAS DOES (1-5) (fictitious names), Defendants
106. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 105 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Fourth Count.
107. The malicious, conspiratorial actions of the Defendants were undertaken in bad faith, in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, through which Defendants exhibited racially discriminatory intent and whereby the unwritten policy, practice, or custom, of the Defendants selectively denying and/or depriving students attending predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School and in particular, minority Plaintiff Junior Doe, of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures actually afforded similarly situated students attending certain, predominantly or significantly, Caucasian-populated schools within Allentown School District, in that these Defendants:
(a) in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard to African-American Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s, Constitutional Right to Equal Protection not to be subjected to racial discrimination, concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Caucasian, Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
69

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 70 of 108
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of minority students within the Central Elementary School such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant , F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of minority students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report to the City of Allentown Police Department, or any other law enforcement agency, the repeated incidents of sexual assaults of innocent minority students committed by a known Caucasian, Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(f) intentionally and discriminatorily failed to: (i) memorialize, file, and/or report the accurate number of violent incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, as listed in the Annual Report of School Violence and Weapons Possession, regarding repeated acts of violence against innocent students, such as minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe, at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, such as Central Elementary School, (ii) summon the police or emergency medical services at certain predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, such as Central Elementary School, (iii) provide reasonably appropriate and necessary medical treatment at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, such as
70

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 71 of 108
Central Elementary School, or (iv) accurately document the injuries suffered by student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, such as Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months;
(g) intentionally, discriminatorily, and recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report to school authorities or the City of Allentown Police Department, repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, such as Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months, such as the incidents involving innocent minority victims Michael Roe I, II, & III as referenced herein;
(h) recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for all students’ Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, an environment of unabated violence that continued in certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months, including, but not limited to, the incident referenced herein involving minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(i) intentionally and recklessly failed to suspend, isolate, and/or remove a known, serial, sexual predator, Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., from the school environment when the Defendants knew of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against innocent minority students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an overall environment of student criminal activity and violence against a predominantly minority student population which included Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
71

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 72 of 108
(j) permitted a known student, Defendant F.H., to remain on school premises when Defendants knew that said student presented a clear and present danger to the innocent, predominantly minority student population at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(k) intentionally, discriminatorily, and recklessly failed to accurately memorialize (1) the acts of violence committed by known students such as Defendant, F.H., at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, or (2) the injuries sustained by, predominantly minority students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District;
(l) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant, F.H., at the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months;
(m) intentionally, discriminatorily, recklessly, and in deliberate and callous disregard of the Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection of the predominantly-minority students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent minority students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
72

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 73 of 108
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to innocent, minority student victims of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
(o) repeatedly, intentionally, discriminatorily, and recklessly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within the predominantly-minority populated, Central Elementary School, conduct certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(p) covered up acts of repeated violence at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment directly resulting in continued, unabated acts of violence by a known, Caucasian Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, and presenting a clear and present danger to the innocent, predominantly-minority student population;
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least four (4) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by innocent, predominantly-minority students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Central Elementary School student Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-
73

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 74 of 108
standing violence at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults of innocent minority students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of the predominantly-minority student population at the Central Elementary School, which included Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(s) intentionally, discriminatorily, recklessly, and deliberately failed to and/or refused to enforce the Central Elementary School disciplinary responses and procedures protocol as per the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct to identify, report, punish, and remove known student perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby rendering the predominantly minority-populated Central Elementary School unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used, and for which sovereign immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8542(b)(3);
(t) intentionally, discriminatorily, recklessly, and in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of violence at certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including the Central Elementary School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security and safety problems at such schools by:
(1) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
74

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 75 of 108
(2) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and related technology;
(7) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent
75

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 76 of 108
students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School… all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H., systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon innocent minority students, including the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on March 16, 2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population; (u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to report the incidents of sexual assaults of innocent minority students to the City of Allentown Police Department, despite having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or workmen; (v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the day-to-day affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the constitutional violations of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s guaranteed rights as referenced above; (w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to protect the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights amounting to a deliberate, discriminatory indifference to and callous disregard for the rights of minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in particular the right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
76

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 77 of 108
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain predominantly minority-populated school within Allentown School District, including the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within such certain predominantly minority-populated schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
108. This denial and/or deprivation of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures occurred prior to, during the time of, and/or after it was known or reasonably suspected by the Defendants that for a period at least four (4) months, Caucasian Defendant, F.H, had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent minority students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School.
109. Plaintiff Junior Doe is an African-American minority male, and was, at all times material hereto, a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School and a member of a suspect class that was subjected to the racially discriminatory enforcement and/or denial of protective services, procedures, and/or policies as described herein.
110. The protective services, policies, and procedures discriminatorily denied and/or deprived to certain, predominantly minority-populated schools within the Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, but afforded to certain other significantly or predominantly, Caucasian-populated schools within the District, include, but are not limited to: (a) an adequate assessment and remedying of school building safety; (b) consistent enforcement
77

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 78 of 108
of the Allentown School District Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence; (c) establishment of school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers; (d) specific and/or consistent notification or reporting to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation any and all known or reasonably suspected sexual or violent assaults that have occurred on school property; and (e) the adequate supervision, isolation, and/or removal of students, such as Defendant, F.H., who have previously committed sexual or violent assaults against other students on school property.
111. When administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel of certain other schools within Allentown School District having significant or predominantly-Caucasian student populations, such as the Trexler Middle School, Muhlenberg Elementary School, and Lehigh Parkway Elementary School, were made aware of known or reasonably suspected acts of violence or sexual assaults, both the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting procedures/protocols were consistently enforced and/or employed, in addition to the wide range of protective services also afforded to those predominantly-Caucasian student populations by the Allentown School District, as referenced in Paragraph 110 above.
112. In denying comparable protective services, policies, procedures, notification, and/or subsequent law enforcement investigation for known allegations and/or occurrences of violent and sexual assaults, Defendants displayed deliberate, reckless, racially discriminatory indifference toward the Equal Protection Rights of the predominantly-minority student population at Central Elementary School, including those rights of minority Plaintiff Junior Doe, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
78

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 79 of 108
113. The policies of race-based, discriminatory enforcement of the Allentown School District Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting procedures and protocols, as well as the race-based, discriminatory denial and/or deprivation of the protective services actually afforded to similarly situated students attending certain other, predominantly or significantly, Caucasianpopulated schools within Allentown School District, is subject to strict scrutiny and not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest or objective, given that Defendant, F.H, had previously committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent minority students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of the predominantly minority-populated Central Elementary School for a period at least four (4) months, whereby such continued, racially discriminatory, deliberately indifferent enforcement and/or denials of equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures at Central Elementary School was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, at Central Elementary School on March 16, 2004.
114. Defendant’s intentional, reckless, discriminatory failure to provide an equivalent level of protective services, policies, and procedures, as provided for in the Allentown School Districts’ official disciplinary policies, responses, procedures, code of conduct, and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures, to the predominantly-minority Central Elementary School student population, which included Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in comparison to the services, policies, and procedures actually afforded similarly situated students attending certain significantly or predominantly Caucasian-populated schools within Allentown School District, hereby violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is a form of racial discrimination.
115. The selective, discriminatory practices of the Defendants have resulted in and continue to result in the purposeful violation of Central Elementary School students’ Equal
79

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 80 of 108
Protection rights, including those rights of minority Plaintiff, Junior Doe, because of Central Elementary’s predominant racial and/or ethnic minority makeup of their overall student population in comparison to similarly situated student populations at certain significantly or predominantly Caucasian-populated schools within the Allentown School District.
116. At all times relevant hereto through the aforesaid acts and knowledge of the acts of the other Defendants, caused, directed, approved, and ratified the aforesaid acts which constitute violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights.
117. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
118. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
119. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss .
80

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 81 of 108
120. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
121. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand judgment against the Defendants for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants. (c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional; (d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein; (e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT V WILLFUL MISCONDUCT CONSTITUTING INTENTIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EQUIVALENT LEVELS OF PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, PROCEDURES, AND POLICIES JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
81

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 82 of 108
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity KAREN J. BOARDMAN in her individual capacity
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity
RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual capacity RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN in her individual capacity,
THOMAS DOES (1-5) (fictitious names), Defendants
122. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 121 of this Complaint
as if set forth at length herein this Fifth Count.
82

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 83 of 108
123. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
124. At all times material hereto, the individual Defendants acted in course and scope of their employment within Allentown School District, under color of state law, and either in or at the supervision, direction, approval, acceptance, and ratification of, or in concert with the conduct and activities of the Defendants named herein, and in regard to the safety of students within the Central Elementary School were responsible for medical care, social services, and associated treatment of said students, as well as the implementation and enforcement of the Disciplinary Responses and Procedures at the Central Elementary School.
125. The malicious, conspiratorial actions of the individual Defendants as named above were undertaken in bad faith, in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, as well as in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, in particular the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et. seq., and Pennsylvania’s Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et seq., regarding mandatory required reporting of known violent incidents occurring on school property, whereby unwritten policy, practice, or custom, Defendants exhibited willful misconduct in intentionally, recklessly, and discriminatorily failing to provide an equivalent level of protective services, policies, and procedures to the Central Elementary School students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as provided for in the Allentown School Districts’ official disciplinary policies, responses, procedures, code of conduct, and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures, and as afforded to students similarly situated at certain other schools within the Allentown School District, for a period of at least four (4) months, which was
83

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 84 of 108
substantially certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004, in that these Defendants:
(a) concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of students within the Central Elementary School such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report to the City of Allentown Police Department, or any other law enforcement agency, the repeated incidents of sexual assaults committed by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(f) intentionally and recklessly failed to: (i) memorialize, file, and/or report the accurate number of violent incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, as listed in the Annual Report of School Violence and Weapons Possession regarding repeated acts of
84

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 85 of 108
violence against other innocent Central Elementary School students such as Plaintiff, Junior Doe, (ii) summon the police or emergency medical services, (iii) provide reasonably appropriate and necessary medical treatment, or (iv) accurately document the injuries suffered by innocent student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals, for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(g) intentionally and recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report to school authorities or the City of Allentown Police Department, the repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least twenty (20) months, such as the incidents involving innocent victims of Michael Roes I, II, & III as referenced herein;
(h) recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for all students’ rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution, an environment of unabated violence that continued in certain problematic schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, including, but not limited to, the incident referenced herein involving Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(i) intentionally and recklessly failed to suspend, isolate, and/or remove a known, serial, sexual predator, Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., from the school environment when the Defendants knew of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against other Central Elementary School students for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an environment of student criminal activity and violence against other innocent students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
85

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 86 of 108
(j) permitted a known student, Defendant F.H., to remain on school premises when Defendants knew that said student presented a clear and present danger to the other innocent students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(k) intentionally and recklessly failed to accurately memorialize the acts of violence committed by known students at certain Allentown School District schools, including Defendant, F.H., or the injuries sustained by students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain problematic schools within Allentown School District;
(l) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant, F.H., at the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(m) intentionally and recklessly, in deliberate and in callous disregard of the Constitutional Rights of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to student victims of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
86

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 87 of 108
(o) repeatedly, intentionally, and recklessly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within the Central Elementary School, conduct certain to result in the additional, brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004;
(p) covered up acts of repeated violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment directly resulting in continued, unabated, acts of violence by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, and presenting a clear and present danger to innocent students;
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central Elementary School, for over twenty (20) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Central Elementary School student Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-standing violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults on innocent students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting
87

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 88 of 108
to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of students at the Central
Elementary School including Plaintiff, Junior Doe;
(s) intentionally, recklessly, and deliberately failed to and/or refused to enforce the
Central Elementary School disciplinary responses and procedures protocol, as per the Allentown
School District Official Code of Conduct, to identify, report, punish, and remove known student
perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four
(4) months, thereby rendering the Central Elementary School building unsafe for the activities
for which it was intended and generally used, and for which official immunity will not lie
pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8550;
(t) intentionally, recklessly, and in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of
violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the Central
Elementary School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security
and safety problems at such schools by:
(1) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(2) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance
88

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 89 of 108
equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and related technology;
(7) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School…
all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H.,
systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon innocents
students, including the brutal rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff Junior Doe on
March 16, 2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms
at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or
isolation from the general school population;
(u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by known Central
Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to
89

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 90 of 108
report the incidents of sexual assaults to the City of Allentown Police Department, despite having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or workmen;
(v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the day-to-day affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the constitutional violations of Plaintiff, Junior Doe’s rights as referenced above;
(w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to protect the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights amounting to a deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in particular the right to bodily integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, §1 and §26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain problematic schools, including the Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within certain Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s constitutional rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Article I, §1 and §26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
126. The conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference which are complained of herein were committed by the individual Defendants while said Defendants were acting as Allentown School District administrators, officials, servants, workmen, agents, and/or
90

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 91 of 108
employees, and consist of “acts or conduct which constitutes a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct” for which official immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8550.
127. This intentional, reckless, and discriminatory failure to provide adequate or equivalent levels of protective services, policies, and procedures to the Central Elementary School students, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, occurred prior to, during the time of, and/or after it was known or reasonably suspected by the Defendants that for a period at least four (4) months, Defendant, F.H, had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School.
128. The protective services, policies, and procedures selectively denied and/or deprived to the students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff, Junior Doe, but afforded to similarly situated students at certain other schools within the district, include, but are not limited to: (a) an adequate assessment and remedying of school building safety; (b) consistent enforcement of the Allentown School District Code of Conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for known or reasonably suspected acts of violence; (c) establishment of school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers; (d) specific and/or consistent notification or reporting to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation any and all known or reasonably suspected sexual or violent assaults that have occurred on school property; and (e) the adequate supervision, isolation, and/or removal of students, such as Defendant, F.H., who have previously committed sexual or violent assaults against other students on school property.
129. At all times relevant hereto through the aforesaid acts and knowledge of the acts of the other Defendants, caused, directed, approved, and ratified the aforesaid acts which constitute violations of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights.
91

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 92 of 108
130. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, the Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
131. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
132. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss .
133. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
134. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
92

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 93 of 108
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand judgment against the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants. (c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional and illegal; (d) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (e) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENT CARE, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL OF REAL PROPERTY
JUNIOR DOE JOHN DOE JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant
135. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 134 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Sixth Count.
136. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
137. At all times material hereto, the Defendants acted in course and scope of their employment with Allentown School District, under color of state law, and either in or at the supervision, direction, approval, acceptance, and ratification of, or in concert with the conduct and activities of the Defendants named herein, and in regard to the safety of students within the Central Elementary School, were responsible for the implementation and enforcement of, along
93

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 94 of 108
with the other Defendants named herein, the Disciplinary Responses and Procedures at the
Central Elementary School.
138. The aforesaid acts and/or omissions constituting deliberate indifference of
Allentown School District, through its administrators, officials, servants, workmen, agents,
employees, and/or independent contractors acting in their official capacity, to the continued
unfettered violent and sexual attacks at Central Elementary School that directly resulted in
Allentown School District’s failure to address grave security and safety problems at Central
Elementary School, included, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) failure to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(2) failure to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(3) failure to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(4) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(5) failure to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that addresses risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(6) failure to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and/or related technology;
(7) failure to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(8) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the violent sexual incidents involving Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators,
94

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 95 of 108
employees, and/or safety personnel that for a period at least four (4) months that Defendant had in fact committed repeated, violent, sexual assaults against at least three innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(9) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(10) the specific failure to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiff Junior Doe, from Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for at least over four (4) months that Defendant F.H. had committed violent, sexual assaults against innocent students in known, unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School…
which thereby rendered the Central Elementary School building unsafe for the activities for
which it was intended and generally used, all of which enabled and was substantially certain to
directly result in Defendant, F.H., systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent
sexual assaults upon innocents students without fear of significant punishment, discipline,
removal, and/or isolation from the general school population, including the additional, brutal
rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, that occurred on March 16, 2004
within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at the Central
Elementary School building, and for which sovereign immunity for Defendant Allentown School
District will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(3).
139. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the aforesaid deliberately
indifferent and callous conduct of the Defendant in disregard of the health, safety, welfare, and
Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and in direct violation of the aforesaid federal
and state education laws and regulations, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical
95

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 96 of 108
injuries, has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain, has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
140. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as a result of the aforesaid deliberately indifferent and callous conduct of the Defendant in disregard of the health, safety, welfare, and Constitutional Rights of then-sixyear old Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
141. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as a result of the aforesaid deliberately indifferent and callous conduct of the Defendant in disregard of the health, safety, welfare, and Constitutional Rights of then-sixyear old Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs’ respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss .
142. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as a result of the aforesaid deliberately indifferent and callous conduct of
96

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 97 of 108
the Defendant in disregard of the health, safety, welfare, and Constitutional Rights of then-sixyear old Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
143. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Junior Doe, as a result of the aforesaid deliberately indifferent and callous conduct of the Defendant in disregard of the health, safety, welfare, and Constitutional Rights of then-sixyear old Plaintiff, Junior Doe, and in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Junior Doe, John Doe, and Jane Doe, hereby demand judgment against the Defendant Allentown School District for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of the Defendant. (c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional and illegal; (d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein; (e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
97

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 98 of 108
COUNT VII
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
JUNIOR DOE Plaintiff v.
EVA W. HADDON in her individual capacity
BRADLEY CARTER in his individual capacity DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO in her individual capacity
EVELYN W. ROSSI in her individual capacity KAREN BOARDMAN in her individual capacity
DIANE M. HOLBEN in her individual capacity
RITA D. PEREZ, in her individual capacity RALPH A. DAUBERT in his individual capacity
RALPH S. TODD in his individual capacity DEBORAH HARTMAN in her individual capacity DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ in her individual capacity
GERALD BROWN in his individual capacity
AMY ENRIGHT in her individual capacity
LORI FRIEBOLIN in her individual capacity
KIM CECCATTI in her individual capacity CATHERINE BUCKS in her individual capacity
JENNA HEILAND in her individual capacity
PEG PERRY in her individual capacity KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN in her individual capacity,
F.H., a minor, THOMAS DOES (1-5)
98

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 99 of 108
(fictitious names), Defendants
144. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 143 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Seventh Count.
145. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
146. The aforesaid extreme, outrageous, intentional, and/or reckless conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the Defendants in the scope of their employment, or acting independently, was reasonably foreseeable and intentionally and/or recklessly calculated, designed, and intended by the Defendants to inflict deliberate emotional distress, psychological trauma, and psychic pain and suffering upon the Plaintiffs and to instill in their minds an immediate and permanent sense of fear and trepidation, and said conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference surpassed all bounds of decency universally recognized in a civilized society.
147. The aforesaid conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference were in violation of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, in particular the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et. seq., and Pennsylvania’s Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et seq., and in regards to Defendant, F.H., his actions were also in violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code.
148. The conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference which are complained of herein were committed by the individual Defendants while said Defendants were acting as
99

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 100 of 108
Allentown School District administrators, officials, servants, workmen, agents, and/or employees, and consist of “acts or conduct which constitutes a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct” for which immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8550.
149. As direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the Defendants, which constitute extremely outrageous conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time into the future the following:
(a) emotional, psychological, and physical distress, trauma, injury, and harm; (b) mental anguish; (c) psychic pain and suffering; (d) severe fright, horror, and grief; (e) shame, humiliation, and embarrassment; (f) severe anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry; (g) the need to expend funds for medical care and treatment; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, hereby demands judgment against the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions, and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants. (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (d) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
100

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 101 of 108
COUNT VIII NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
JUNIOR DOE Plaintiff v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.
F.H., a minor, ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1-5)
(fictitious public entities), Defendants
150. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 149 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Eighth Count.
151. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
152. The above-named Defendants each owed a duty of care to Plaintiff regarding either his personal health, safety, and welfare, or to the care, custody, and control of the Central Elementary School building in which Plaintiff attended as a six-year old student, and the aforesaid extreme, outrageous, negligent, careless, wrongful, and reckless conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the above-named Defendants was: (a) negligent, careless, wrongful, and/or reckless; (b) created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable bodily harm or emotional disturbance to the Plaintiff and/or rendered the Central Elementary School building unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used; (c) constituted a breach of the aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff; and (d) directly and proximately caused physical impact and/or injury to the Plaintiff as well as continued, reoccurring emotional distress, psychological trauma, and psychic pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff and to instill in his mind an immediate and permanent sense of fear and trepidation.
101

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 102 of 108
153. Because the injuries complained of herein were proximately caused by the aforesaid negligent conduct, acts, omissions, and/or deliberate indifference of Defendants Allentown School District, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., and/or ABC Agencies, through its administrators, officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors, with respect to either the personal health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, or to the care, custody, and control of the Central Elementary School building, which has always been in the possession of Defendant Allentown School District, immunity will not lie for Defendants Allentown School District or ABC Agencies pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(3).
154. The aforesaid negligent conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the Defendants was in violation of Plaintiff Junior Doe’s Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, in particular the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et. seq., and Pennsylvania’s Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et seq., and in regards to Defendant F.H.’s conduct, his actions were in violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code.
155. As direct and proximate result and consequence of the aforesaid conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the above-named Defendants, which constitute extremely outrageous conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time into the future the following:
(a) emotional, psychological, and physical distress, trauma, injury, and harm; (b) mental anguish; (c) psychic pain and suffering; (d) severe fright, horror, and grief;
102

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 103 of 108
(e) shame, humiliation, and embarrassment; (f) severe anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry; (g) the need to expend funds for medical care and treatment; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, hereby demands judgment against the abovenamed Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct, acts, omissions,
and deliberate indifference of one or more of the Defendants; (c) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, customs, acts, and
omissions complained of herein are unconstitutional and illegal; (d) injunctive relief in the form of a Court Order requiring the Defendants to
rectify the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein; (e) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (f) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT IX ASSAULT AND BATTERY
JUNIOR DOE Plaintiff v.
F.H., a minor Defendant
156. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 155 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Ninth Count.
157. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
103

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 104 of 108
158. As set forth in detail above, Defendant, F.H., a minor, who at all times material hereto was a twelve year-old male student at Central Elementary School, did, without justification, commit assault and battery by negligently, intentionally, and unlawfully engaging in offensive and harmful physical contact via his known modus operandi of forcibly entering occupied bathroom stalls, removing the pants of, and violently raping and indecently assaulting six year-old male Plaintiff, Junior Doe, about the buttocks, anus, and genital region in one of the unsecured, unmonitored, and security-abandoned bathroom areas at Central Elementary School on or about March 16, 2004.
159. As aforementioned in this Complaint, at some later point in time during the year 2004, Defendant F.H. was formally arrested and subsequently adjudicated delinquent of rape, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault, for this March 16, 2004 attack of Plaintiff, Junior Doe, whereby the then-twelve year-old Defendant, F.H., was sentenced by a Lehigh County Family Court Judge to serve six-to-nine years in Harborcreek Youth Services Center, located in the County of Erie, City of Harborcreek, Pennsylvania.
160. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent, intentional, criminal and/or assaultive actions by the Defendant, F.H., Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, is suffering, and will in the future continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain; has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
161. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions by the Defendant, F.H., Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has been, is still, and will continue in the future to be, unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiff’s respective age, and has
104

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 105 of 108
suffered, is suffering, and will continue in the future to suffer, a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, hereby demands judgment against the Defendant, F.H., for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; (b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct of the
Defendant; (c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (d) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
COUNT X FALSE IMPRISONMENT
JUNIOR DOE Plaintiff v.
F.H., a minor Defendant
162. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 161 of this Complaint as if set forth herein this Tenth Count.
163. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over this claim for relief of Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
164. As detailed throughout this Complaint, Defendant, F.H., a minor, who at all times material hereto was a twelve year-old male student at Central Elementary School, did, without justification, commit false imprisonment during the course of negligently, intentionally, and unlawfully engaging in offensive and harmful physical contact by forcibly entering occupied bathroom stalls, physically restraining and/or blocking all reasonable means of escape, removing
105

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 106 of 108
the pants of, and violently raping and indecently assaulting six year-old male Plaintiff, Junior Doe, about the buttocks, anus, and genital region in one of the unsecured, unmonitored, and security-abandoned bathroom areas at Central Elementary School on or about March 16, 2004.
165. The aforesaid conduct and actions of the Defendant, F.H., placed Plaintiff, Junior Doe, in fear of further assault and violence against him, placed and kept Plaintiff in custody by physical restraining and/or blocking all reasonable means of escape, and frightened Plaintiff with fear of future harm.
166. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the aforesaid actions by the Defendant, F.H., Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has suffered substantial physical injuries, is suffering, and will in the future continue to suffer great mental anguish, stress, anxiety, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical pain; has incurred and will in the future incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment; has been prevented in the past and will in the future be prevented from attending to his usual and customary duties, activities, and avocations, all to his great detriment and loss.
167. As a direct and proximate consequence and result of the aforesaid actions by the Defendant, F.H., Plaintiff, Junior Doe, has been, is still, and will continue in the future to be, unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiff’s respective age, and has suffered, is suffering, and will continue in the future to suffer, a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Junior Doe, hereby demands judgment against the Defendant, F.H., for:
(a) compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
106

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 107 of 108
(b) punitive damages, for the outlandish and outrageous conduct of the Defendant;
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and (d) such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), the Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted, WINEGAR, WILHELM, GLYNN & ROEMERSMA

SCOTT At

BY: __/S/____________________________ M. WILHELM, ESQ., I.D. # 77195
305 Roseberry Street, P.O. Box 800 Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (908) 454-3200, FAX: (908) 454-3322 wilhelms@verizon.net
torney for Plaintiffs

BLAKE
At DATED: May 5, 2006

__/S/_____________________________ W. RUSH, ESQ., I.D. # 94498
305 Roseberry Street, P.O. Box 800 Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (908) 454-3200, FAX: (908) 454-3322 blakerush@verizon.net
torney for Plaintiffs

107

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 1 Filed 05/05/06 Page 108 of 108

VERIFICATION

We, Scott M. W ilhelm, Esq. and Blake W . Rush, Esq., state that we are Attorneys for Plaintiffs in the within a ction and verify that the Complaint is legal in na ture, that I am familiar with the facts contained therein and that the statements within are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief; and further st ate that as Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, we are best qualified to execute this verification to the foregoing Complaint. W e understand that any false statements herein are m ade subject to the penalties of 18 P A C.S. ' 4904, relating t o unsworn falsification to authorities.
/S/ __ SCOTT M. WILHELM, ESQ.

DATED: May 5, 2006

/S/ BLAKE W. RUSH, ESQ.

108

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 45

PFEIFFER, BRUNO, MINOTTI & DeESCH 44 North 2nd Street- P.O. Box 468
Easton, PA 18044 (610) 258-4003
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE I, a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, JOHN DOE II, a minor, by his natural parent and/or legal guardian, JOHN DOE III, a minor, by his parent and natural guardian, JOHN DOE IV, a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, and JOHN DOE V, a minor, by his parent and natural guardian,

Civil No.: 2:06-CV-1926 (PSD)

Plaintiffs vs.

Civil Action

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN (alk/a "Allentown School District"), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI, KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M.HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S.TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN,DR.LOURDESSANCHEZ,GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTl, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., a minor, through his parents and natural guardians, and F.H. MOTHER, individually, and F.H. FATHER, individually,

Jury Trial Demanded
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff- Intervenor, vs.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN,

Defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 45
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, John Doe I, a minor by and through his parents and natural guardians, John Doe II, a minor by and through his natural parent and/or legal guardian, John Doe III, a minor by and through his parent and natural guardian, John Doe IV, a minor by and through his parents and natural guardians, and John Doe V, a minor by and through his parent and natural guardian, by and through their undersigned counsel, James L. Pfeiffer, Esq., Charles Bruno, Esq., and Blake W. Rush, Esq., who hereby state:
I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, John Doe I, a fictitious name (previously identified in prior pleadings as "Nicholas Coe"), is presently a minor Hispanic-American male and resident ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Essex, City of Lawrence, who at all times material hereto was a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. This claim is being brought on John Doe I's behalfby and through his parents and natural guardians. 2. Plaintiff, John Doe II, a fictitious name (previously identified in prior pleadings as "Donald Noe"), is presently a minor Hispanic-American male and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lehigh, City of Allentown, who at all times material hereto was a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. This claim is being brought on John Doe II's behalf by and through his parent and/or legal guardian. 3. Plaintiff, John Doe III, a fictitious name (previously identified in prior pleadings as "Junior Roe"), is presently a minor Hispanic-American male and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lehigh, City of Allentown, who at all times material hereto was a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 45
829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. This claim is being brought on John Doe III's behalfby and through his parent and natural guardian.
4. Plaintiff, John Doe IV, a fictitious name (previously identified in prior pleadings as "Junior Doe"), is presently a minor African-American male and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lehigh, City of Allentown, who at all times material hereto was a six year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. This claim is being brought on John Doe IV's behalf by and through his parents and natural guardians.
5. Plaintiff, John Doe Vi, a fictitious name, is presently a minor African-American male and resident of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, City of Huntington, who at all times material hereto was a seven year-old elementary school student at the Central Elementary School located at 829 Turner Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102. This claim is being brought on John Doe V's behalfby and through his parent and natural guardian.
6. Defendant, The School District of the City of Allentown a/k/a Allentown School District ("ASD"), is a public education entity incorporated, authorized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 31 South Penn Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 18102-5409, which entity at all times hereto functioned, under color of state law, as the executive administrative agency responsible for the orderly administration of the public schools within the Allentown School District, including, but not limited to, the Central Elementary School.
I Plaintiff, John Doe V, has been added as an additional party to this action under a fictitious name out of concern that his identity may be published for viewing by the general public. John Doe V's identity is protected from public disclosure pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1.3, the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et. seq., and Pennsylvania common law. John Doe V's true identity and present residences has been disclosed to all parties to this litigation in accordance with the April 14,2008 Stipulation and Order previously entered in this action.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 4 of 45
7. Defendant, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc. ("Hospital"), is a professional business corporation/organization existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at Interstate 78 and Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 18105, authorized and/or licensed to provide health care, medical care, education, social services, and associated treatment through its agents, servants, employees, and/or independent contractors.
8. At all times material hereto, the Defendant Hospital functioned under color of state law, as the entity responsible for health care, medical care, education, social services, and associated treatment within certain schools ofthe Allentown School District. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim(s) against this defendant.
9. Defendant, Eva W. Haddon, is an adult individual and resident ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto acted in her individual capacity and under color of state law as the Principal of the Central Elementary School was responsible for the daily administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to, implementation and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety, and at all times material hereto was acting within the course and scope of her employment.
10. Defendant, Bradley Carter, is an adult individual and resident ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto acted in his individual capacity and under color of state law as the Assistant Principal of the Central Elementary School.
11. Defendant, Dr. Karen S. Angello, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Superintendent for the Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Superintendent within the

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 5 of 45
course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures.
12. Defendant, Evelyn W. Rossi, is an adult individual and resident ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Human Resources for the Allentown School District, who acted in her individual capacity and as Director of Human Resources acted under color of state law was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures.
13. Defendant, Karen J. Boardman, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary, (nlk/a Executive Director of Elementary Education), for the Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Assistant to the Superintendent-Elementary within the course and scope of her employment under color of state law and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures.
14. Defendant, Diane M. Holben, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Research, Planning, and Accountability for the Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Director of Research, Planning, and Accountability and within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety within Allentown School District.
15. Defendant, Rita D. Perez, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 6 of 45
Professional and Staff Development for the Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Director of Professional and Staff Development, and within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the administration and implementation of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to the enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety within Allentown School District.
16. Defendant, Ralph A. Daubert, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Executive Director of Community and Student Services for the Allentown School District, and acted in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Community and Student Services and within the course and scope of his employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the design, administration, implementation, and enforcement of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety within Allentown School District.
17. Defendant, Ralph S. Todd, is an adult individual and resident ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Executive Director of Instructional Support Services for the Allentown School District, and acted in his individual capacity and as Executive Director of Instructional Support Services and within the course and scope of his employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the administration, implementation and enforcement of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety for special education students within the Allentown School District.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 7 of 45
18. Defendant, Deborah Hartman, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was the Director of Instructional Support Services, (nlkla Director of Special Education), for Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Director of Instructional Support Services and within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to the administration, implementation, application, and enforcement of disciplinary procedures and school child safety for special education students within Allentown School District.
19. Defendant, Dr. Lourdes Sanchez, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto acted in her individual capacity and under color of state law as the School Psychologist for the Allentown School District, in particular the Central Elementary School, was responsible for the design, implementation, and daily enforcement of Allentown School District policies and procedures, including but not limited to disciplinary procedures and school child safety, and responsibility for the care, safety, and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V.
20. Defendant, Gerald Brown, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School and acted in his individual capacity and as a Teacher and within the course and scope of his employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III John Doe IV, and

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 8 of 45
John Doe V, and acted in concert with and at the direction of Defendant Eva W. Haddon, the remaining Defendants named herein and others.
21. Defendant, Amy Enright, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School, and acted in her individual capacity and as a Teacher and within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law and was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V.
22. Defendant, Lori Friebolin, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School and acted under color of state law and was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V,
23. Defendant, Kim Ceccatti, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was a Guidance Counselor for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School and acted in her individual capacity and as Guidance Counselor and within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law, was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V.
24. Defendant, Catherine Bucks, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was a Teacher for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School, and acted in her individual capacity

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 9 of 45
and as a Teacher within the course and scope of her employment and acted under color of state law, and was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V.
25. Defendant, Jenna Heiland, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at times relevant hereto was a School Nurse for the Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School, and acted in her individual capacity and as a School Nurse within the course and scope of her employment and acted under the color of state law, and was responsible for the nursing care, safety, and welfare of all students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V.
26. Defendant, Margaret Parry a/k!a Peg Parry, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was an agent, servant, employee, and/or independent contractor employed by, and/or acting on behalf of Defendants, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., and/or Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as School Nurse within the course and scope of her employment within Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School, and acted under color of state law ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was responsible for the nursing care, safety, and welfare of all students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim against this Defendant
27. Defendant, Kathleen E. Coughlin, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all times relevant hereto was an agent, servant, employee, and/or independent contractor employed by, and/or acting on behalf of Defendants,

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 10 of 45
Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., and/or Allentown School District, and acted in her individual capacity and as Social Worker within the course and scope of her employment within Allentown School District at the Central Elementary School, and acted under color of state law and was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim against this Defendant.
28. Defendants, Allentown School District, Haddon, Carter, Angello, Rossi, Boardman, Holben, Perez, Daubert, Todd, Hartman, Sanchez, Brown, Enright, Friebolin, Ceccatti, Bucks, Heiland, Parry, Coughlin, shall at times be referred to collectively as "ASD Defendants" .
29. Defendant, F.H., a fictitious name, is presently a minor Caucasian male and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania currently incarcerated at and in the custody of Cresson Secure Treatment Unit, located in the County of Cambria, City of Cresson, Pennsylvania, who at all times material hereto was an approximate twelve-year-old, special education elementary school student at the Central Elementary School. Defendants, F.H. Father and F.H. Mother, are, and were at all times mentioned in this Complaint, residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the parents and natural guardians ofthe minor Defendant, F.H. F.H. Father and F.H. Mother are named as Defendants both personally and on behalf of the Defendant, F.H.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. Since the Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under federal statutes, jurisdiction of this Court is
conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction over the state law claims is provided by 28 U.s.c. §
1367 as pendent claims.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 11 of 45
31. Venue is proper is this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
III. ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS 32. Defendants individually, jointly, severally, and/or in concert with each other, violated the Plaintiffs' right to bodily integrity guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and their right to equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as analogous provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 Section 901 et seq. 33. At all times material hereto, and with respect to all actions described herein, the Defendants acted under color of state law, individually, jointly, severally, and/or in concert with each other, and with color of their authority as officials, employees, agents, servants, and/or independent contractors of the Allentown School District and the Board of School Directors of the School District of the City of Allentown, and for Allentown School Board. 34. At all times material hereto, the Defendant Allentown School District and its schools including Central Elementary School are educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. 35. At or around the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, Defendant F.H., an approximate twelve-year-old Caucasian minor known by the ASD Defendants to have deviant sexual propensities, was transferred from a KidsPeace psychiatric hospital and/or in-patient treatment facility to Central Elementary School located within the Allentown School District and thereupon placed into Central Elementary's special education program within the general student population.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 12 of 45
36. At the time of said transfer, F.H. had been diagnosed as suffering from numerous behavioral and psychological disorders and had a documented history of sexual abuse, deviant sexual conduct, and/or sexual harassment involving other children, all of which was known to all Defendants.
37. At or prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, the ASD Defendants possessed substantial information and knowledge concerning F.H.'s propensity to engage in deviant sexual conduct and/or sexual harassment involving other children such that ASD Defendants were aware or should have been aware that F.H. posed a known, clear and continuing danger to the general student population at Central Elementary, including all of the minor Plaintiffs.
38. In deliberate indifference to said danger, the ASD Defendants failed to take any reasonable measures to adequately supervise, isolate, monitor, discipline, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of F.H. in such a manner that would provide adequate protection to the general student population at Central Elementary.
39. It was under these above-referenced circumstances that Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V all attended Central Elementary School as promising 1st grade and 2nd grade students during the 2003-2004 school year.
40. At some definitive point in time between December 2003 and March 2004, Defendant, F.H., violently, sexually and indecently assaulted a 1st grade minority male student, Plaintiff John Doe I, in a bathroom stall at Central Elementary School by an older Caucasian male student believed to be the Defendant, F.H.
41. Thereafter, a second-grade teacher and first-grade teacher each reported the assault of John Doe I to Central Elementary School's main office whereby it came to the attention of Defendants, Eva W. Haddon, Bradley Carter, Kim Ceccatti, Kathleen E. Coughlin, Dr. Lourdes

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 13 of 45
Sanchez, Jenna Heiland, and/or Margaret Parry, who each consciously chose not to infonn John Doe I's parents about the incident and further chose not to contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this violent, sexual and indecent assault and pennitted F.H. to remain within the general student population of Central Elementary School.
42. Defendants' deliberate indifference, omissions, and/or failure to adequately isolate or remove Defendant F.H. from the general school population or otherwise implement a procedure which would prevent him from having unsupervised contact with a younger male and/or female students after Defendants had become aware, or reasonably suspected that F.H. had previously committed deviant sexual acts of assault and/or abuse of other minors or had the propensity to do so, thereby created an atmosphere of unabated violence which rendered Central Elementary School a completely unsafe environment for the activities for which it was intended and regularly used and which deliberate indifference was substantially certain to result in F.H.'s subsequent violent, sexual and indecent assaults and/or rape of Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John II, John III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V.
43. Defendants' deliberate indifference, omissions, and/or failure to adequately discipline, isolate, remove, and/or report Defendant, F.H., to local law enforcement agencies after Defendants had become aware or reasonably suspected that F.H. had violently, sexually and indecently assaulted innocent students in unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby fostered an atmosphere of unabated violence which rendered Central Elementary School a completely unsafe environment for the activities for which it was intended and regularly used, and which deliberate indifference was substantially certain to result in F.H.'s subsequent violent, sexual and indecent assaults and/or rapes of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, which shall be fully set forth below.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 14 of 45
44. The acts and/or omissions constituting deliberate indifference and blatant
disregard of the law by Defendant Allentown School District, through its administrators,
officials, servants, workmen, agents, independent contractors, and/or employees, to the continued
unfettered violent and sexual attacks at Central Elementary School that directly resulted in
Allentown School District's failure to address grave security and safety problems at Central
Elementary School, include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) failure to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(b) failure to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(c) failure to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(d) failure to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(e) failure to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that addresses risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(f) failure to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and related technology;
(g) failure to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(h) specifically failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that Defendant F.H. had committed a violent sexual assault against an innocent student in an unsecured, unmonitored, securityabandoned bathroom area of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation and in violation of the law, which requires the reporting of suspected child abuse;

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 15 of 45
(i) the specific failure to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel that F.H. had committed a violent sexual assault against an innocent student in an unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom area of Central Elementary School; and
(j) the specific failure to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, John Doe V, and John Doe VI from Defendant, F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel that F.H. had committed a violent, sexual assault against an innocent student in an unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom area of Central Elementary School;
all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in F.H. systematically and
continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults against innocent students, including the
Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V within the
confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas at Central Elementary
School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the
general school population.
45. The acts and/or omissions constituting deliberate indifference and blatant
disregard of the law by Defendant, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., through its administrators,
officials, servants, workmen, agents, independent contractors, and/or employees, to the continued
unfettered violent and sexual attacks at Central Elementary School that directly resulted in the
Hospital's failure to address grave security and safety problems that Hospital employees had
knowledge, include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) failure to adequately train school and Hospital officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 16 of 45
(b) failure to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services; (c) specifically failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies after it was known or reasonable suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel that Defendant F.H. had committed a violent sexual assault against an innocent student in an unsecured, unmonitored, securityabandoned bathroom area of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation and in violation of the law which requires the reporting of suspected child abuse; all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in F.H. systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults against innocent students, including th(~ Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population. 46. Specifically, Defendant, F.H., continued to conduct unfettered targeting of innocent students within the unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas at Central Elementary School utilizing his same modus operandi previously known to the Defendants of forcibly entering occupied bathroom stalls, imprisoning, and violently sexually assaulting the innocent student. 47. At all times material hereto Defendants, Eva W. Haddon, Bradley Carter, Dr. Lourdes Sanchez, Kathleen E. Coughlin, Jenna Heiland, Margaret Parry, Kim Ceccatti, Gerald Brown, Amy Enright, Lori Friebolin, and Catherine Bucks performed their employment duties involving the supervision, discipline, monitoring, and/or providing educational, medical and social services to students at the School. 48. At all times material hereto to which all above-referenced Defendants had known or reasonably suspected that Defendant, F.H., was targeting and sexually assaulting innocent

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 17 of 45
students at Central Elementary School, there was never any reasonable coordinated effort within, by, or amongst the above-referenced Defendants to either: (i) remove, isolate, or discipline F.H.; (ii) secure or monitor the bathroom areas where the incidents of violence repeatedly occurred; (iii) accurately or routinely memorialize the violent incidents via accurate medical records and/or security reports; (iv) report or communicate the continuing incidents to the Allentown School District Police Liaison, the City of Allentown Police Department, and/or the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office, or other applicable agency; and/or (v) make any other reasonable attempt to halt the continued violent and sexual assaults which occurred within the confines of Central Elementary School.
49. In deliberate indifference to the known, clear and continuing present danger that Defendant, F.H., continued to present to the student population within the Central Elementary School, in particular the much younger, first and second-grade classes from which all ofthe presently-known victims were enrolled in, the Defendants herein failed to take any reasonable measures whatsoever to curtail F.H. 's continued unfettered acts of violence, and as a consequence, an atmosphere of continued systematic violence by F.H. continued to exist at the Central Elementary School, which atmosphere of unabated violence provided a safe haven for continued criminal sexual assaults against innocent students, and which chaotic atmosphere expectedly flourished and was certain to culminate in additional brutal, sexual and violent assaults within the confines of the unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, such as those committed against Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V, as fully set forth herein.
50. At yet another definitive point in time between December 2003 and March, 2004, Defendant F.H. violently, sexually and indecently assaulted a second child, 1st grade minority male student Plaintiff John Doe III, in a bathroom stall at Central Elementary School.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 18 of 45
51. On or about same day that the incident occurred, John Doe III described the violent sexual and indecent assault he had suffered to his mother, who immediately traveled to Central Elementary School and notified Defendant, Bradley Carter, of the incident.
52. Bradley Carter advised John Doe Ill's mother that he was already aware of the assault suffered by John Doe III.
53. Thereafter, Bradley Carter falsely advised John Doe Ill's mother that the assault had already been reported to the local police department and falsely assured her that the perpetrator would be expelled and/or otherwise removed from the Central Elementary School student population, all in attempt to convince John Doe Ill's mother that she did not have to contact local law enforcement authorities herself.
54. The above named ASD Defendants thereafter concealed this second sexual assault involving F.H., prevented it from being reported to any local law enforcement agency, and permitted F.H. to remain within the general student population of Central Elementary School.
55. Next, at yet another definitive point in time between December 2003 and March 2004, Defendant F.H. violently, sexually and indecently assaulted a third child, 2nd grade minority male student Plaintiff John Doe V, in a bathroom stall and surrounding area at Central Elementary School.
56. Immediately following the incident, John Doe V reported the sexual assault he had suffered to his 2nd grade teacher, whereby it quickly came to the attention of the Defendants, Eva Haddon, Bradley Carter and Kim Ceccatti.
57. On or about the same day ofthe assault, Defendant Kim Ceccatti and/or ASD personnel brought John Doe V around to various classrooms to view other students and then into the cafeteria where John Doe V positively identified F.H. as the perpetrator who sexually assaulted him.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 19 of 45
58. Despite the fact that the ASD Defendants conducted questioning concerning John Doe V's incident, said ASD Defendants or Defendant Hospital employees, consciously chose not to contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this fifth violent, sexual and indecent assault involving F.H. and permitted F.H. to remain within the general student population of Central Elementary School.
59. On or about the very same day that F.H.'s sexually assaulted Plaintiff John Doe V, Defendant F.H. also violently, sexually and indecently assaulted a fourth child, 1st grade minority male student Plaintiff John Doe II in a bathroom stall at Central Elementary School.
60. Immediately after the incident, ASD Defendants were made aware officially of the attack on Plaintiff John Doe II and F.H. was identified by said Plaintiff as his assailant.
61. Despite the fact that the ASD Defendants conducted questioning concerning John Doe II's incident, said ASD Defendants or Defendant Hospital employees, consciously chose not to contact any law enforcement agency at any point in time concerning this fifth violent, sexual and indecent assault involving F.H. and permitted F.H. to remain within the general student population of Central Elementary School.
62. On or about March 16,2004, in the same type of unsecured, unmonitored, and security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School where Defendant, F.H., had previously sexually assaulted other innocent 1st grade and 2nd grade minority male students, F.H. forcibly entered an occupied bathroom stall and violently raped and indecently sexually assaulted 1st grade minority male student, Plaintiff John Doe IV.
63. Immediately prior to this violent rape and aggravated indecent assault of Plaintiff John Doe IV, Defendant F.H. was sitting in detention supervised by Defendant, Gerald Brown, located in a hallway: (a) on the same secluded floor in Central Elementary School which only

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 20 of 45
housed lower-level, kindergarten, first, and second-grade classes; and (b) directly adjoining the lower-level bathroom area where the brutal rape and indecent assault in question took place.
64. John Doe IV notified his first-grade teacher, Defendant Catherine Bucks, of the sexual assault he had suffered. After being notified of the assault on John Doe IV, Ms. Bucks failed to: (a) report the incident to school administrators, officials, and/or employees; and/or (b) take Plaintiff to the nurse's office for medical examination and/or treatment; and/or (c) report the incident to his parents. Defendant Buck's actions and/or omissions are wholly consistent with a pattern of deceit at the Central Elementary School in veiling the known, continued, unabated sexual assaults by F.H. for a period of at least four (4) months.
65. F.H. was identified as the attacker by John Doe IV the same day in the presence of Defendant Bucks and Defendant Haddon.
66. Defendants' aforementioned acts fostered an atmosphere of unabated violence by providing a safe haven for continued, known, criminal sexual assaults by Defendant, F.H., against innocent students such as Plaintiffs.
67. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
68. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to suffer great mental anguish, shame, terror, embarrassment, humiliation, and/or physical pain into the future, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
69. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs have been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 21 of 45
life of an individual of the Plaintiffs' respective ages, and have suffered a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life, all of which have been to their great, collective detriment and loss.
70. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs will continue, in the future, to be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of the life of an individual of the Plaintiffs' respective ages, and suffer a great loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of their lives, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
71. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs have incurred substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment, all of which have been to their great, collective financial loss.
72. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs will continue to incur substantial medical, psychological, and hospital expenses for care and treatment, all of which will be to their great, collective detriment and loss.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPTIAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO,
EVELYN W. ROSSI, KAREN BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN,
DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND,

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 22 of 45
MARGARET PARRY (a/k/a PEG PARRY), KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN Defendants
73. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as if fully set forth at length.
74. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants either in or at the supervision, direction, approval, acceptance, and ratification of, or in concert with, the conduct and activities of the other Defendants named herein, acted individually and in their official capacity under the color of state law and in regard to the safety of students within the Central Elementary School were responsible for custody, care, education, social services, and associated treatment of said students, as well as the implementation and enforcement of the Disciplinary Responses and Procedures at the Central Elementary School.
75. The malicious actions of the Defendants were undertaken in bad faith, in deliberate indifference to, and in callous disregard of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to bodily integrity guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, in that these Defendants:
(a) concealed violent, sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, which resulted in the additional violent, sexual, and indecent assaults and/or rapes of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, John Doe IV and John Doe V at separate and distinct points in time between December 2003 and March 16, 2004;
(b) countenanced, tolerated, veiled, and thereby fostered, a certain level of violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months certain to result in the additional violent, sexual, and indecent assaults and/or rapes of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 23 of 45
Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V at separate and distinct points in time between December 2003 and March 16, 2004;
(c) conspired, in callous disregard for the safety of students within the Central Elementary School, such as Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, to cover-up continued, repeated, systematic violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(d) repeatedly trivialized the nature, extent, and repetition of systematic sexual assaults of students at Central Elementary School by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(e) intentionally and/or recklessly veiled and failed to notify, apprise, and/or report the repeated incidents of sexual assaults committed by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., over a period of at least four (4) months to the City of Allentown Police Department or any other agency possessing appropriate authority;
(f) intentionally and/or recklessly failed to summon emergency medical services, provide reasonably appropriate and necessary medical treatment, or accurately document the injuries suffered by student victims of violence at the hands of known individuals for a period of at least four (4) months;
(g) intentionally and/or recklessly failed to notify, apprise, or report repeated incidents of violence and weapons possession by known individuals within Central Elementary School to the City of Allentown Police Department and/or other local law enforcement agencies for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(h) intentionally and/or recklessly allowed and fostered, in deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for students' constitutional rights to bodily integrity guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 24 of 45
Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, an environment of unabated violence that continued in certain problematic schools within Allentown School District, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, prior to and subsequent to, the incidents previously set forth in this Complaint;
(i) intentionally and/or recklessly failed to isolate and/or remove a known sexual predator, Defendant F.H., from the general student population within Central Elementary School after Defendants knew or became reasonably aware of the repeated sexual assaults he committed against other Central Elementary School students for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby harboring an environment of student criminal activity and violence against other students, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V;
(j) knowingly permitted Defendant, F.H., to remain on school premises and within the general student population of Central Elementary School after Defendants knew or became reasonably aware that said student presented a clear and present danger to the other students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V;
(k) intentionally and/or recklessly failed to accurately memorialize and/or document the acts of violence committed by known students at certain Allentown School District schools, including Defendant F.H., or the injuries sustained by students as a direct result thereof, such as those at Central Elementary School set forth previously, in an effort to conceal and/or veil the long-continued violence at certain problematic schools within the Allentown School District;
(1) conspired to veil the continued, repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including the known sexual assaults committed by Defendant F.H. at Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding the clear and present danger that innocent students faced at certain

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 25 of 45
problematic Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months;
(m) intentionally and/or recklessly, in deliberate and in callous disregard ofthe Constitutional Rights to Bodily Integrity of students at the Central Elementary School, failed to notify the City of Allentown Police Department and/or authorities of repeated sexual assaults of innocent students at Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months, which was certain to result in the violent, sexual, and indecent assaults and/or rapes of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V at separate and distinct points in time between December 2003 and March 16, 2004;
(n) failed to adequately document the brutal injuries suffered from repeated sexual assaults by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant, F.H., and/or correctly document the nature and extent of repeated injuries to student victims of such violence within the Central Elementary School for a period of at least four (4) months;
(0) intentionally and/or recklessly repeatedly disregarded reports and/or warnings of continued violence and sexual assaults by a known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months thereby fostering an environment conducive to, and creating a climate which facilitated, continued sexual violence and harboring of student criminals and criminal activity within Central Elementary School, conduct certain to result in the violent, sexual, and indecent assaults and/or rapes of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V at separate and distinct points in time between December 2003 and March 16, 2004;
(p) covered-up repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months, which thereby fostered a criminally violent school environment and presented a clear

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 26 of 45
and present danger to innocent students directly resulting in continued, unabated acts of violence by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months;
(q) repeatedly ignored the medical needs of students violently attacked within certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, for a period of at least twenty (20) months by failing to accurately memorialize and/or document the serious injuries suffered by students as a consequence of violent and sexual attacks by known students, such as those committed by Defendant, F.H., in an effort to veil the long-standing violence within certain problematic Allentown School District schools so as to avoid public, municipal, police, and state scrutiny for fostering a criminal environment and the complete lack of safety that existed as a direct result thereof;
(r) conspired with each other to veil, trivialize, completely ignore, and/or withhold from public scrutiny the known repeated sexual assaults on innocent students by known Central Elementary School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, amounting to conspiratorial, deliberate indifference to the safety and well-being of students at the Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V;
(s) intentionally and/or recklessly failed to and/or refused to enforce the disciplinary responses and procedures protocol at Central Elementary School, adopted pursuant to the Allentown School District Official Code of Conduct, concerning known student perpetrators of violent and sexual assaults, such as Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, thereby rendering the Central Elementary School unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used, and for which sovereign immunity will not lie pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8542(b)(3);

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 27 of 45
(t) intentionally, recklessly, and/or in deliberate indifference to the continued acts of
violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary
School, Defendants failed to make any concerted effort to address the grave security and safety
problems at such schools by:
(i) failing to adequately assess and/or remedy school building safety, in particular the wholly unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms, hallways, and/or common areas;
(ii) failing to enhance or establish school security personnel, including school resource officers and on-site police officers;
(iii) failing to implement and/or consistently enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols and procedures to be followed for acts involving violence and/or weapons on school property;
(iv) failing to adequately train school officials, servants, workmen, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors in effective measures to prevent school violence and improve safety;
(v) failing to implement school safety and violence prevention programs and/or curriculum that address risk-factors to reduce incidents of problem behaviors among students;
(vi) failing to formulate adequate security planning or purchase security-related technology, which may include metal detectors, protective lighting, surveillance equipment, special emergency communication equipment, electronic locksets, deadbolts, and/or related technology;
(vii) failing to provide specialized staff and student training programs, including the training of student assistance program team members in the referral of students at risk of violent behavior to appropriate community-based services;
(viii) specifically and repeatedly failing to report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and/or safety personnel for a period of at least four (4) months that Defendant, F.H., had repeatedly committed violent sexual assaults against innocent students in unsecured, unmonitored, securityabandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School, thereby thwarting police notice and investigation;
(ix) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately supervise, discipline, isolate, monitor, remove, and/or conduct surveillance of Defendant, F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees,

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 28 of 45
and safety personnel for a period of at least four (4) months that F.H. had repeatedly committed violent sexual assaults against innocent student in unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School; and
(x) specifically and repeatedly failing to adequately protect the innocent students at Central Elementary School, including Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V from Defendant, F.H., after it was known or reasonably suspected by Central Elementary administrators, employees, and safety personnel for a period of at least four (4) months that F.H. had committed violent sexual assaults against innocent students in unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathroom areas of Central Elementary School;
all of which enabled and was substantially certain to directly result in Defendant, F.H.,
systematically and continually conducting unfettered, violent sexual assaults upon students,
including the aforementioned assaults of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John
Doe IV and John Doe V at separate and distinct points in time between September 2003 and
March 16,2004, within the confines of unsecured, unmonitored, security-abandoned bathrooms at Central Elementary School, without fear of significant punishment, discipline, removal, and/or isolation from the general school population;
(u) conspired in silence to veil the repeated sexual assaults by Central Elementary
School student, Defendant F.H., for a period of at least four (4) months, by failing to report the
incidents of sexual assaults to the City of Allentown Police Department or any other law enforcement agency, despite having been repeatedly notified or made aware of such sexual assaults at some time by other Central Elementary School students, teachers, administrators, officials, agents, servants, and/or workmen;
(v) failed to adequately train and supervise its administrators and employees operating the daily affairs of the Allentown School District, namely the individual Defendants named herein, thereby causing the violations of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V's constitutional rights as referenced above;

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 29 of 45
(w) failed to train the administrators, officials, agents, servants, employees, and lor independent contractors of Allentown School District and Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., to protect the Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights amounting to a deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, in particular the Right to Bodily Integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(x) in having knowledge of the acts of the other individual Defendants named herein, participated in and conspired with the co-Defendants herein to veil continued acts of sexual violence at certain problematic Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, in an effort to insulate themselves from public scrutiny regarding unabated violence within certain Allentown School District schools, including Central Elementary School, to the peril of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V's constitutional rights to bodily integrity guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
76. At all times relevant hereto, through commission of the aforesaid acts and omissions as well as through knowledge of said acts and omissions by other Defendants, each Defendant named herein substantially caused, directed, approved, and/or ratified the aforesaid acts and omissions which are violations of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV John Doe V's constitutional rights.
77. At all times relevant hereto, the hann ultimately caused to the Plaintiffs was a foreseeable and fairly direct result of the Defendants' conduct described herein whereby the Defendants acted in willful disregard for and/or in deliberate indifference to the safety of the

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 30 of 45
Plaintiffs; and a relationship existed between the Defendants and Plaintiffs such that Plaintiffs were foreseeable victims of the Defendants' conduct described herein and the Defendants' use of their authority in said relationship created a more dangerous and/or more vulnerable position and/or opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for F.H.'s crimes against Plaintiffs to subsequently occur.
78. As a direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the Defendants' conduct described herein, all Plaintiffs have suffered damages as referred to above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest, attorneys fees and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF 20 U.S.C SECTION 1681-TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION
AMENDMENTS OF 1972 TO THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT JOHN DOE, I JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs
v.
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendants
79. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 78 above as if fully set forth at length.
80. The Defendant, Allentown School District, is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Said Defendant school district's educational programs and activities receive federal financial assistance.
81. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, along with Defendant F.H., were all emolled as students at Central Elementary School, an educational institution operated by Defendant Allentown School District.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 31 of 45
82. Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, have been subject to sexual discrimination and harassment while under the care and supervision of Defendant Allentown School District by and through its employees and representatives.
83. The individuals acting as agents and employees of Defendant, Allentown School District are public school officials who had actual knowledge of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and sexual attacks being perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs by Defendant F.H.
84. The individual employees and/or representatives of the Defendant Allentown School District failed to investigate Defendant F.H. 's background regarding his propensity for deviant sexual behavior as well as the specific instances of sexual assault identified within this Complaint and further take appropriate corrective action to prevent other acts of sexual harassment by Defendant F.H.
85. At all times material hereto, Defendant F.H. committed acts of peer sexual harassment on the minor Plaintiffs by sexually assaulting and/or raping each of the Plaintiffs.
86. At all times material hereto, Defendant Allentown School District by and through its employees and/or representatives had authority to take remedial action prior to and following the acts of sexual assault perpetrated by the Defendant F.H.
87. The attacks by F.H. upon the Plaintiffs happened at Central Elementary School property during school hours.
88. Defendant Allentown School District by and through its agents and employees identified above were aware that Defendant F.H. committed acts of peer sexual harassment on others in the past, and the minor Plaintiffs thereby creating a substantial risk of harm that F.H. would in the future sexually assault others including the minor Plaintiffs, yet failed to take any action to prevent Defendant F.H. from committing such acts on the Plaintiffs.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 32 of 45
89. At all times material hereto, the peer sexual harassment perpetrated by Defendant F.H. and known to Defendant Allentown School District by and through its employees and representatives were so severe, persistent, pervasive so as to limit each of the Plaintiffs' ability in their education programs within the Central Elementary School thereby creating a hostile educational environment for the minor Plaintiffs.
90. The failure on the part of Defendant Allentown School District by and through its employees and representatives to take appropriate remedial action to prevent said attacks was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
91. At all times material hereto, the acts of sexual harassment perpetrated by Defendant F.H. were so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive to prevent Plaintiffs as victims from access to educational opportunities and benefits within the Central Elementary School programs.
92. At all times material hereto, the Defendant Allentown School District by and through its agents and employees identified above, were deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment perpetrated by Defendant F.H. on the minor Plaintiffs as well as others.
93. At all times material hereto, Defendant Allentown School District by and through its employees of Central Elementary School and through the officials and representatives of the same had possessed enough knowledge of the prior sexual harassment/assaults perpetrated by Defendant F.H. that it reasonably could have responded and taken remedial measures as corrective action to prevent Defendant F.H. from sexually harassing and/or assaulting the minor Plaintiffs.
94. Under Title IX ofthe Educational Amendments of 1972 Section 901 et seq. (20 U.S.C.A. Sections 1681 et seq.) Defendant Allentown School District is liable for Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 33 of 45
F.H. 's sexual abuse, assault, and molestation and/or rapes of the minor Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V.
95. At the times material hereto, the failure on the part of the Defendant School District to take remedial action in light of the obvious need to act constituted a policy of inaction by Defendant Allentown School District.
96. As a direct and proximate result ofthe violations of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 referred to above, the minor Plaintiffs have suffered damages as referred to above as well as psychological, physical, and emotional harm, lack of participation in school, fear of going to school, dropping grades, an increase in absence from school, and a complete loss of self esteem.
97. The aforesaid discrimination and harassment suffered by the Plaintiffs was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, whereby it undermined and detracted from the Plaintiffs' educational experience in such a manner that they were denied equal access to Defendant school district's educational resources, benefits, and opportunities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant Allentown School District for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest, attorney's fees and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT III PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs
v.
MARGARET PARRY (a/k/a PEG PARRY) Defendant
98. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 97 above as if fully set forth at length.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 34 of 45
99. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
100. At all times materials hereto, the Defendant, Margaret Parry (alk/a Peg Parry), was a licensed and practicing nurse in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
101. At definitive points in time between December 2003 and March 2004 and for a period of time prior thereto, Defendant Parry was a school nurse at the Central Elementary School employed by Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc.
102. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Parry did provide medical and/or professional care, attention, treatment, and supervision to the Defendant F.H. and later to each of the Plaintiffs following their rapes and/or sexual assaults each of them suffered as set forth herein, during the time period that said minor Plaintiffs attended Central Elementary School.
103. Defendant Parry owed each of the minor Plaintiffs a duty to provide proper professional medical care, attention, treatment and supervision as well as a duty to make proper reports and give notice to authorities of any suspected sexual assaults and/or abuse in a reasonable time after said events occurred.
104. At all times material hereto, Defendant Parry committed acts of professional negligence and deviated from the accepted standard of care pertaining to school nurses by failing to provide notice ofthe sexual assaults upon the Plaintiffs within a reasonable time after they occurred to the appropriate authorities including the local enforcement agencies and otherwise in violation of the accepted professional standard of care pertaining to school nurses.
105. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Parry's professional negligence, the Plaintiffs suffered the damages identified above.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 35 of 45
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant Parry, jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT IV PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs v.
KATHLEEN COUGHLIN Defendant
106. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 105 above as if fully set forth at length.
107. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, Kathleen E. Coughlin, was a licensed and practicing social worker in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
108. Defendant Coughlin was responsible for the custody, care, safety, and welfare of students attending Central Elementary School and owed a corresponding duty of care to Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V, during the time period that they attended Central Elementary School.
109. Defendant Coughlin owed each of the minor Plaintiffs a duty to provide proper professional medical care, attention, treatment and supervision as well as a duty to make proper reports and give notice to authorities of any suspected sexual assaults and/or abuse in a reasonable time after said events occurred.
110. At definitive points in time between December 2003 and March 2004, and for a period of time prior thereto, Defendant Coughlin did provide professional care, attention, treatment, and supervision to the Defendant F.H., and later to each ofthe Plaintiffs following their rapes and/or sexual assaults they suffered at the hands of Defendant F.H.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 36 of 45
111. At all times material hereto, Defendant Coughlin committed acts of professional negligence and deviated from the accepted standard of care pertaining to social workers by failing to provide notice of the sexual assaults upon the Plaintiffs within a reasonable time after they occurred to the appropriate authorities including the local enforcement agencies and otherwise in violation of the accepted professional standard of care pertaining to social workers.
112. The professional care, attention, treatment and supervision provided by Defendant Coughlin was reckless, negligent, and in deviation from the accepted professional standard of care applicable to social workers.
113. As a direct result of Defendant Coughlin's professional negligence, the Plaintiffs suffered damages as set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant Coughlin, jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT V PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs
v.
LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. Defendant
114. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 113 above as if fully set forth at length.
115. At all times material hereto, Defendants Margaret Parry (alk/a Peg Parry) and/or Defendant Kathleen E. Coughlin were agents, servants, and/or employees of the Defendant, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 37 of 45
116. By virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., is vicariously liable for the above-mentioned injuries and damages sustained by each of the Plaintiffs as a result of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Parry and/or the Defendant Coughlin.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs
v.
F.H., a minor Defendant
117. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 116 above as if fully set forth at length.
118. At separate and distinct points in time between December 2003 and March 16, 2004 as set forth in detail above, Defendant F.H. was negligent and failed to exercise the reasonable care which other minors of like age, experience, capacity and development would ordinarily exercise under similar circumstances, whereby he forcibly entered occupied bathroom stalls at Central Elementary School and negligently engaged in offensive and harmful sexual contact with Plaintiffs, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V.
119. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's intentional actions and/or negligence actionslinactions, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as enumerated above.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 38 of 45
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant F.H., jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT VII NEGLIGENCE JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V,
Plaintiffs v.
F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER Defendants
120. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 119 above as if fully set forth at length.
121. Defendants, F.H. FATHER and F.H. MOTHER, are the biological parents of Defendant F.H., and at all times material hereto, said Defendants had physical and legal custody ofF.H. who resided with said Defendants in the same residence.
122. At or prior to the beginning ofthe 2003-2004 school year, Defendants F.H. FATHER and F.H. MOTHER knew or should have known ofthe deviant sexual propensities of their son, F.H., and his prior history of sexual abuse, deviant sexual conduct, and/or sexual harassment involving other children, such that said Defendants were aware or should have been aware that F.H. posed a known, clear and continuing danger to the general student population at Central Elementary School.
123. Notwithstanding their aforesaid knowledge and awareness, Defendants F.H. FATHER and F.H. MOTHER were negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care to control F.H. so as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from conducting himself in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 39 of 45
124. As a direct and result of the negligence of the Defendants F.H. FATHER and F.H. MOTHER, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages as enumerated above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendants F.H. FATHER and F.H. MOTHER, jointly and severally with the other named Defendants, for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs v.
F.H. ,a minor Defendant
125. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 124 above as if fully set forth at length.
126. The aforesaid extreme, outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the Defendant F.H., as set forth in this Complaint, surpassed all bounds of decency universally recognized in a civilized society, and was intentionally and/or recklessly calculated and/or designed by said Defendant F.H. to cause and/or inflict deliberate, reasonably foreseeable emotional distress, psychological trauma, and psychic pain and suffering upon the Plaintiffs and to instill in their minds an immediate and permanent sense of fear and trepidation.
127. As direct, proximate, and legally substantial result of the aforesaid conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference ofthe Defendant F.H., which constitute extremely outrageous conduct, all Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time into the future, the following:

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 40 of 45
(a) emotional, psychological, and physical distress, trauma, injury, and harm; (b) mental anguish; (c) psychic pain and suffering; (d) severe fright, horror, and grief; (e) shame, humiliation, and embarrassment; (f) severe anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry; and (g) the need to expend funds for medical care and treatment. 128. As a direct and proximate and legally substantial consequence and result of the aforesaid deliberately indifferent and callous conduct ofthe Defendant F.H., all Plaintiffs have suffered as stated above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant F.H., jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, punitive damages, interest and the costs ofthis proceeding.
COUNT IX NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs v.
LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., MARGARET PARRY (a/kla PEG PARRY), KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., a minor
Defendants 129. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 128 above as if fully set forth at length. 130. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 41 of 45
131. The above-named Defendants in Count IX each owed a duty of care to all Plaintiffs regarding either their personal health, safety, and welfare, or to the care, custody, and control of the Central Elementary School building in which Plaintiffs attended as a six-year old students, and the aforesaid extreme, outrageous, negligent, careless, wrongful, and reckless conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the above-named Defendants was: (a) negligent, careless, wrongful, and/or reckless; (b) created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable bodily harm or emotional disturbance to the Plaintiffs and/or rendered the Central Elementary School building unsafe for the activities for which it was intended and generally used; (c) constituted a breach ofthe aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiffs; and (d) directly and proximately caused physical impact and/or injury to the Plaintiffs as well as continued, reoccurring emotional distress, psychological trauma, and psychic pain and suffering upon the Plaintiffs and to instill in their minds an immediate and permanent sense of fear and trepidation.
132. The aforesaid negligent conduct, acts, omissions, or deliberate indifference of the Defendants was in violation of Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V's rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and Article I, § 1 and § 26 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as in direct violation of federal and state education laws and regulations, in particular the No Child Left Behind Act of2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et. seq., and Pennsylvania's Safe Schools Act, 24 P.S. § 13-1301 et seq., and in regards to Defendant F.H. 's conduct, his actions were in violation of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code.
133. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforesaid conduct, acts, omissions or deliberate indifference of the above named Defendants, all Plaintiffs have suffered the damages as stated above.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 42 of 45
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendants Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc., Margaret Parry (aJk/a Peg Parry), Kathleen E. Coughlin and F.H., jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, punitive damages, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT X ASSAULT AND BATTERY JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V AND JOHN DOE VI
Plaintiffs
v.
F.H., a minor Defendant
134. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 133 above as if fully set forth at length.
135. This Court has pendent and supplemental jurisdiction over this claim for relief of the Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
136. The sexual assaults committed by the Defendant F.H. upon Plaintiffs constituted assault and battery of the individual Plaintiffs.
137. As a direct result ofthe assault and battery committed by Defendant F.H., Plaintiffs have suffered damages as suffered above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant F.H., jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, punitive damages, interest and the costs of this proceeding.
COUNT XI FALSE IMPRISONMENT JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV AND JOHN DOE V
Plaintiffs

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 43 of 45

v.
F.H., a minor Defendant

138. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs I through 137 above as if

fully set forth at length.

139. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over this claim for relief of Plaintiff pursuant

to 28 U.S.c. § 1367.

140. At all times material hereto, the acts committed by F.H. with respect to the

Plaintiffs constituted false imprisonment of each of the individual minor Plaintiffs since at all

times during the attacks he placed and kept Plaintiffs in custody by physically restraining andlor

blocking reasonable means of escape and fight the Plaintiffs for fear of future harm.

141. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant F.H.'s false imprisonment of the

Plaintiffs, they suffered damages as enumerated above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against Defendant F.H.,

jointly and severally with the other named Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount

to be proven at trial, punitive damages, interest and the costs of this proceeding.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b), the Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

PFEIFFER, BRUNO, MINOTTI & DeESCH

BY:

lSI JAMES L. PFEIFFER

JAMES L. PFEIFFER, ESQ., I.D. # 47268 44 North 2nd Street

P.O. Box 468

Easton, PA 18042

(610) 258-4003, FAX: (610) 258-1943

jpfeiffer@pbmdlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 44 of 45

DATED: July 13, 2011

ISI CHARLES BRUNO CHARLES BRUNO, ESQ., I.D. #52812 44 North 2nd Street P.O. Box 468 Easton, PA 18042 (610) 258-4003, FAX: (610) 258-1943 cbruno@pbmdlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
lSI BLAKE W. RUSH BLAKE W. RUSH, ESQ., I.D. # 94498 44 North 2nd Street P.O. Box 468 Easton, PA 18042 (610) 258-4003, FAX: (610) 258-1943 brush@pbmdlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 233 Filed 08/03/11 Page 45 of 45

VERIFICATION
We, James L. Pfeiffer, Esq., Charles Bruno, Esq., and Blake W. Rush, Esq., state that we are Attorneys for Plaintiffs in the within action and verify that the Complaint is legal in nature, that we are familiar with the facts contained therein and that the statements within are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief; and further state that as Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, we are best qualified to execute this verification to the foregoing Complaint. We understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

lSI JAMES L. PFEIFFER JAMES L. PFEIFFER, ESQ.

lSI CHARLES BRUNO CHARLES BRUNO, ESQ.

DATED: July 13, 2011

lSI BLAKE W. RUSH BLAKE W. RUSH, ESQ.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE I, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Civil Action No.: 2:06-CV-1926

v.

)

)

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE

)

CITY OF ALLENTOWN

)

(a/k/a “Allentown School District”), et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

Consent Decree

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v.

)

)

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE

)

CITY OF ALLENTOWN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________________________________________________

CONSENT DECREE

Pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688

(“Title IX”), Plaintiff-Intervenor United States initiated an investigation into allegations made by

Private Plaintiffs John Doe (“Private Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned lawsuit that students in

the Allentown School District (“ASD” or the “District”) were subjected to sex-based harassment

during the 2003-2004 school year.

After completing its investigation into the allegations raised in Private Plaintiffs’ Second

Amended Complaint, in July 2009, the United States intervened in Private Plaintiffs’ lawsuit,

asserting a Title IX claim against the District for failing to stop the sexual harassment of Private

Plaintiffs and for the creation and continued existence of a hostile environment for ASD

students. Intervenor Complaint, ECF No. 140 (July 10, 2009). The United States’ complaint

Page 1 of 36

alleged that during the 2003-2004 school year, peer-on-peer sexual harassment was severe, pervasive, and persistent in ASD and interfered with students’ educational opportunities, creating a hostile environment in the District; ASD knew or reasonably should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate responsive action to stop the harassment and eliminate the hostile environment; and ASD has since failed to remedy the sexual harassment and prevent against future instances of sexual harassment as required by: Title IX; the Title IX implementing regulations, 34 CFR 106.8, 106.9 (1975); and the 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance issued by the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).1 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Sexual Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students or Third Parties, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html (notice as 66 Fed. Reg. 5,512 (Jan. 19, 2001)) (“OCR Guidance”).
The United States and ASD have conferred in good faith and negotiated the terms of this Consent Decree to resolve the United States’ claims against the District. This Consent Decree is entered in full and final settlement of the claims alleged in the United States’ Complaint-inIntervention. After reviewing the terms of this Consent Decree, the Court finds them to be fair, just, reasonable, and consistent with the requirements of Title IX. ASD and the United States agree that the entry of this Consent Decree, without further litigation, is in the public interest and agree to all terms and conditions below.
1 The 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance was supplemented in 2011 adding “additional guidance and practical examples regarding the Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence,” and the District also has failed to implement policies and procedures in accordance with that supplement. OCR Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence (Apr. 4, 2011), at 2.
Page 2 of 36

ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 as well as 20 U.S.C. §§1681-1688. The United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention stated claims upon which relief may be granted against ASD.
B. Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
II. DEFINITIONS A. “Sexual harassment,” a form of sex-based harassment, is defined to include sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual violence, sexual deviancy, sexually inappropriate contact, and inappropriate touching and, as such, shall include unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature; rape; attempted rape; intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature (conduct need not be physical); unwelcome or inappropriate sexual advances; non-consensual, forced physical sexual behavior; nonconsensual kissing and fondling; exposure of genitalia; voyeurism; exhibitionism; sexually suggestive statements or demands; the use of a position of trust to compel otherwise unwanted sexual activity with or without physical force; the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another; assault of a sexual nature on another person; or any sexual act committed without consent. B. A “hostile environment” exists when sex-based harassment is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to interfere with or limit one or more students’ ability to participate in or benefit from the education program. C. “Education program” includes, without limitation, all ASD schools, facilities, property, and ASD-sponsored events.
Page 3 of 36

D. The terms “parent” or “parents” mean a student’s parent, guardian, or other person in parental or legal custodial relationship to the student.
E. “ASD Personnel” means all District central office and school administrators and employees, including but not limited to principals, assistant principals, counselors, psychologists, nurses, faculty, teachers, permanent and temporary staff, contractors (including police officers) who have regular interaction with ASD students, and substitute teachers.
F. “Discipline” and “disciplinary action” mean actions taken by ASD Personnel to address student behavior consistent with District policy as set forth in its Comprehensive Suspension Program, School-Wide Positive Behavioral Support System, and infractions and consequences contained in the ASD Official Code of Conduct (“Code of Conduct”), see Code of Conduct at ii, 1, & 13 (2011), and the ASD Student Discipline Policy, see Allentown School District Policy # 218 (2011). Such actions include but are not limited to reprimand by ASD Personnel, office referral, in-school or out-of-school suspension, detention, and expulsion.
G. “Equity Coordinator” means a person designated by ASD to coordinate its antidiscrimination and harassment efforts, including but not limited to its efforts to comply with and carry out its Title IX responsibilities to, among other things, conduct investigations of sexual harassment complaints as set forth in Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, and the OCR Guidance. See 34 CFR 106.8(a) (requiring federal fund recipients, including school districts, to “designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities” under the regulations).
H. “Notes” and “interview notes” mean written, or otherwise recorded, material that memorializes observations and interviews of witnesses, the harassed student, and the alleged harasser(s) during a sexual harassment investigation.
Page 4 of 36

I. The term “policies and procedures” includes any written or unwritten practice, guidance, protocol, directive, mandate, rule, regulation, plan, guideline, program, or process that involve sexual harassment.
J. The terms “complaint” and “allegation,” unless used in reference to Private Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, or Third Amended Complaint, mean an assertion, grievance, report or statement alleging sexual harassment, whether formally filed or informally communicated and whether communicated in writing or orally.
K. The term “monitor and supervise” shall mean to observe, watch, keep track of, and check continually for purposes of maintaining full awareness of the activities that occur within the District’s education program and preventing incidents of sexual harassment.
III. BACKGROUND A. ASD is the entity that administers educational services for all students enrolled in the District schools. B. ASD is legally responsible for the operation of all of the schools in the District, and for the conditions therein. C. ASD is a recipient of federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to Title IX and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.31. D. ASD currently serves almost 18,000 students in sixteen elementary schools, four middle schools, and two high schools. E. The United States Department of Justice (“United States”) enforces Title IX in federal courts by intervening, participating as amicus curiae, or filing a Statement of Interest in existing suits between private litigants, or upon referral from OCR. 20 U.S.C. § 1682; Exec.
Page 5 of 36

Order No. 12,250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (1980); 28 C.F.R. 0.51 (1998), 28 U.S.C. §§ 517, 518 (1966, 1992).
F. Private Plaintiffs filed suit against the District and numerous other defendants – individual ASD administrators and employees, the Lehigh Valley Hospital and individual employees, and the student harasser and his parents (collectively, “Defendants”) – alleging, inter alia, that (1) a 12-year-old fifth-grade student sexually harassed and assaulted four six-year-old first-grade students on four separate occasions at Central Elementary School in the District during the 2003-2004 school year, (2) the sexual harassment was “severe, persistent, and pervasive,” thereby depriving Private Plaintiffs of access to educational opportunities, (3) the District had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment, and (4) the District was deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment. Complaint at 19-21, 26-29, ECF No. 1 (May 5, 2006); Amended Complaint at 21-24, 26-30, ECF No. 5 (Aug. 28, 2006); Second Amended Complaint at 12-20, ECF No. 118 (Mar. 9, 2009); and Third Amended Complaint at 11-21, ECF No. 233 (Aug. 3, 2011). Private Plaintiffs alleged that each incident of sexual harassment was reported to ASD administrators immediately after it occurred, but ASD did not take appropriate action to address the harassment and prevent future incidents of sexual harassment from occurring. Id.
G. Private Plaintiffs first filed suit on behalf of John Doe I on May 5, 2006. Complaint, ECF No. 1. Private Plaintiffs pled violations of, inter alia, the Due Process Clause (bodily integrity and state-created danger) and Equal Protection Clause (based on race, socioeconomic status, and age) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Section 1983), 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and several state law provisions. Id. at 30-81. Private Plaintiffs amended their complaint on August 28, 2006, to include minors now identified as John Doe II and John Doe III. Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5. On
Page 6 of 36

September 24, 2007, this Court dismissed Private Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claims and various other claims. Memorandum and Order at 2, ECF No. 79 (Sept. 24, 2007). The Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Due Process and Section 1983 claims, and denied Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. Id. On March 9, 2009, this Court entered Private Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, amended to assert a Title IX cause of action and to add the fourth John Doe (John Doe IV) as a plaintiff party. Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 118.
H. On July 10, 2009, the United States intervened in this lawsuit, and alleged and continues to allege as follows: (1) Private Plaintiffs were six and seven years old in the 20032004 school year and were in the first and second grade at Central Elementary School in the District; (2) on at least five separate occasions, the Private Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted, a form of sex-based harassment, in the boys’ bathrooms at Central Elementary School; (3) the District was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred, and despite this, the District did not take appropriate action – and in some circumstances, took no action – to prevent the harassment from occurring again; (4) both prior to and since the sexual harassment endured by Private Plaintiffs in the 2003-2004 school year, the District failed and continues to fail to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedures, as required by Title IX and its implementing regulations; and (5) had the District adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the District would have prevented (a) the sexual harassment of the Private Plaintiffs and other students in the District, (b) the creation and continued existence of the hostile environment, (c) and the deprivation of educational opportunities for the students who were subject to severe, pervasive and persistent sexual harassment.
Page 7 of 36

I. During the course of fact discovery in this case, Private Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor United States identified at least three additional students who were sexually harassed at Central Elementary School during the 2003-2004 school year by the same fifth-grade student. See Motion for Permissive Joinder of an Additional Party Plaintiff and Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint at 5, ECF No. 228 (July 13, 2011). On August 3, 2011, Private Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint was entered by this Court, adding one of the three additional students, now known as John Doe V, as a plaintiff party. Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 233.
J. ASD denies all allegations made against it by the United States and Private Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, the United States and ASD recognize that there is benefit to the expeditious resolution of the allegations raised by the United States in this case and so agree to the terms of this Consent Decree.
IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree, the District will take reasonable and appropriate action to prevent, address, and eliminate sexual harassment in education programs and activities at every ASD school. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and OCR Guidance. To accomplish this, ASD shall revise its existing policies and procedures that address, in pertinent part, sexual harassment; appropriately and immediately respond and address all conduct that may constitute sexual harassment; fully investigate reported incidents that may constitute sexual harassment; escalate remedial efforts by instituting additional measures when students are sexually harassed on a repeated basis, including but not limited to when one student repeatedly sexually harasses other students or when one student is repeatedly sexually harassed; and
Page 8 of 36

mitigate the effects of sexual harassment that occurs. The District shall take proactive measures to eliminate the hostile environment that arises from and/or contributes to sexual harassment.
B. ASD shall select qualified District and School-Based Equity Coordinators, see infra at V.C.; develop an ASD Sexual Harassment Policy that includes policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment monitoring and supervision, and receipt, investigation, and resolution of incidents and complaints of sexual harassment, see infra at V.B.; create a sexual harassment reporting system, see infra at V.F.; develop procedures to identify, monitor, and supervise students with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students, see infra at V.E.1.; provide sexual harassment training, professional development, and outreach for ASD Personnel, students, and parents, see infra at V.D.; and develop procedures for communicating with outside agencies that work with children who are sexually abused or sexually abusive, see infra at V.G.
C. In order to implement the terms of this Consent Decree, ASD will retain the services of an independent, third-party consultant (“Consultant”) with expertise in addressing and preventing student-on-student harassment in elementary and secondary schools. The Consultant will not be an agent or designee of the District, the United States, or any party to this litigation. As set forth infra at V.A., ASD, at the recommendation of the United States, shall retain the services of the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc., at 5272 River Road, Suite 340, Bethesda, Maryland, to serve as the Consultant by April 2, 2012. ASD shall work with the Consultant to ensure ASD’s compliance with the requirements of this Consent Decree, as detailed infra at V. If, for any reason, ASD does not select the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium as the Consultant, ASD will retain the services of another independent, third party to serve as the Consultant in order to implement the terms of this Consent Decree. If ASD does not select the
Page 9 of 36

Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium as the Consultant, ASD will provide for the United States’ review and approval by April 2, 2012, the name of the proposed third-party consultant with expertise in addressing and preventing sexual harassment between students. ASD will be responsible for any and all costs associated with the retention of the Consultant.
D. This Consent Decree shall remain in force for at least three (3) years from the date it is entered by this Court, see infra at V.J.1.
V. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS A. The Consultant
1. The Consultant shall have the following responsibilities: a) Draft and implement a stand-alone sexual harassment policy (“ASD
Sexual Harassment Policy”) by no later than June 30, 2012, see discussion infra at V.B. b) Identify physical spaces in which sexual harassment can occur and
recommend procedures to ensure that any such places are appropriately monitored. c) Designate all necessary and appropriate ASD Personnel who must be
informed of incidents and allegations of sexual harassment, see discussion infra at V.B.1.b.ii.
d) Advise the District on hiring or selection of the District and School-Based Equity Coordinators who will be hired or selected by no later than the start of the 20122013 school year, see discussion infra at V.C.
e) In the first year of implementation of this Consent Decree, design and conduct sexual harassment training and professional development for all ASD Personnel, which shall include training all ASD Personnel to recognize, prevent, and report instances of sexual harassment, see discussion infra at V.D.
Page 10 of 36

f) Train the District Equity Coordinator to conduct subsequent annual sexual harassment training and professional development for all ASD Personnel, see discussion infra at V.D.
g) In the first year of implementation of this Consent Decree, design and conduct age-appropriate sexual harassment training for all ASD students and sexual harassment information sessions for interested ASD parents, see discussion infra at V.D.
h) Train the District Equity Coordinator to conduct subsequent annual sexual harassment student training and parent information sessions, see discussion infra at V.D.
i) Create policies and procedures for counseling, monitoring, and supervising ASD students who have a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students consistent with FERPA and the IDEA, see discussion infra at V.E.1.
j) Work with the District to determine appropriate ways in which to communicate with parents regarding: the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy; the steps ASD is taking to train its employees and instruct its students on these policies and procedures; and to answer parent and student questions. B. Sexual Harassment Policy 1. The ASD Sexual Harassment Policy will expressly prohibit sexual harassment in the District’s education programs consistent with the requirements of Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, and the OCR Guidance, and will also include, at minimum, the following:
a) The definitions of sexual harassment and hostile environment set forth in Section II of this Consent Decree.
Page 11 of 36

b) Sexual Harassment Monitoring and Supervision requirements that include

the following:

i.

clear and easily understood explanations and examples of student

conduct that constitutes sexual harassment and would violate the ASD Sexual

Harassment Policy; and

ii.

a requirement that all necessary and appropriate ASD Personnel (to

be designated by the Consultant and as set forth in the ASD Sexual Harassment

Policy) will be informed of incidents and allegations of sexual harassment to

protect against future incidents of sexual harassment.

c) Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures that:

i.

require all ASD Personnel to report immediately to the Equity

Coordinators complaints and allegations of sexual harassment and any conduct

ASD Personnel may observe or hear about that might constitute sexual

harassment, whether or not there has been an explicit complaint or allegation, and

to take steps to ensure that all such complaints and allegations are fully

investigated and addressed, as directed by the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy;

ii.

provide contact information for all District and School-Based

Equity Coordinators who are responsible for investigating and addressing all

complaints and allegations of sexual harassment (as set forth infra in Section

V.C.), including their names, position titles, office addresses, telephone numbers,

and e-mail addresses;

iii.

specify timelines and processes for the immediate: reporting of

complaints and allegations of sexual harassment to the appropriate ASD

Page 12 of 36

Personnel; investigation of complaints and allegations of sexual harassment;

notification of parents of students involved in any incident or alleged incident of

sexual harassment; and resolution of complaints and allegations of sexual

harassment;

iv.

notify parents that harassed students, witnesses to incidents of

sexual harassment, parents, any ASD Personnel, and any additional individual

may report sexual harassment to the District orally, in writing, or by other

additional means delineated by the District;

v.

establish a process to immediately notify all necessary and

appropriate ASD Personnel of incidents and alleged incidents of sexual

harassment;

vi.

provide written notice to all individuals involved in the sexual

harassment or alleged sexual harassment – when such allegations involve younger

students, notice may be provided to parents but not the students of the outcome of

the complaint investigation;

vii.

provide assurance to any victim of sexual harassment that ASD

will take effective steps to prevent the recurrence of any sexual harassment and to

address sexual harassment endured by the student(s) and others, where

appropriate;

viii.

provide assurance that they will be effective and applied fairly and

consistently to all complainants and harassed students;

ix.

include an appeals process in which the Superintendent – or other

designated administrator who was not involved in the sexual harassment

Page 13 of 36

investigation – will consider all issues presented by the harassed student or the

student harasser(s) upon completion of the sexual harassment investigation should

an appeal be requested;

x.

require that no complaint or allegation of sexual harassment will be

considered fully resolved unless and until these procedures are followed;

xi.

require that ASD fully investigate and resolve all complaints of

sexual harassment regardless of any ongoing Allentown Police Department

(“APD”) criminal investigation;

xii.

require that, if ASD determines that sexual harassment has

occurred, ASD must take timely, context- and age-appropriate, and effective

corrective action to eliminate any hostile environment that has been created,

prevent further harassment, prevent retaliation (as discussed infra at V.B.1.d.) and

provide remedial measures as required by Title IX;

xiii.

are written in clear, understandable, and age-appropriate language

accessible to students, parents, and ASD Personnel;

xiv.

are translated and language-accessible for students and parents

whose first language is not English; and

xv.

shall not impair or limit the access of legal counsel or the insurance

carrier to ASD to conduct and participate in sexual harassment investigations and

shall not impair or limit the District Equity Coordinator in conducting and

participating in sexual harassment investigations.

d) A provision prohibiting retaliation by any student or ASD Personnel

against a complaining party, witness, or any other person who reports allegations of

Page 14 of 36

sexual harassment or provides information to assist a sexual harassment investigation, and informing parents and students that ASD officials will not only take steps to prevent retaliation but also will take strong responsive action if retaliation occurs.
e) All other additions and recommendations made by the Consultant. 2. The ASD Sexual Harassment Policy shall supersede all policies, procedures, and other relevant language regarding sexual harassment from the ASD Policy and Procedure Reference, the Allentown School District School Board Policy (“School Board Policy”), and the Code of Conduct (collectively, the “ASD Existing Policies”), and all ASD Existing Policies shall be amended accordingly. 3. The District Equity Coordinator will review the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy on an annual basis for the duration of this Consent Decree to ensure compliance with the Consent Decree. The Consultant and the District Equity Coordinator will recommend revisions to the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy as needed following the annual review or as becomes necessary for the District to fully comply with the terms of this Consent Decree and extant federal law. Any such recommendation will be provided to the United States for review and approval in accordance with the requirements of Section V.C.4.m. and V.H., infra. The United States shall notify the District of its approval or required modifications within forty-five (45) days of receiving the recommendations. The District shall notify ASD Personnel, students, and parents about any such changes. 4. Procedures and Timeline for Creation and Implementation of the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy
a) No later than June 30, 2012, the District shall submit to the United States for its review and approval the District’s proposed ASD Sexual Harassment Policy. If
Page 15 of 36

the District disagrees with any of the Consultant’s recommendations or decisions, the

District will provide the United States with the Consultant’s recommendations and

decisions as well as an explanation as to why the District disagrees with the Consultant’s

recommendations and decisions.

b) The United States shall have forty-five (45) calendar days to review and

either approve the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy or inform ASD of its disapproval of

the proposed ASD Sexual Harassment Policy.

c) If the United States disapproves of the proposed ASD Sexual Harassment

Policy, the District, the Consultant, and the United States will work together in good faith

to resolve any disagreements. The United States has final approval authority.

d) Following the United States’ approval, ASD will adopt the ASD Sexual

Harassment Policy within fourteen (14) calendar days.

e) No later than September 1, 2012, ASD will notify all of its students, their

parents, and ASD Personnel of the new ASD Sexual Harassment Policy by:

i.

providing written copies of the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy to

all ASD parents;

ii.

providing electronic copies of the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy

to all ASD Personnel;

iii.

posting copies of the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy in all school

buildings, prominently displayed in well-traveled areas easily accessible to

students and ASD Personnel; and

iv.

including the following information on ASD’s website and on each

individual school website:

Page 16 of 36

(a) an explicit statement setting forth ASD’s commitment to a school environment free from sexual harassment;
(b) a statement encouraging students to immediately report incidents of sexual harassment and confirming that all ASD Personnel must follow the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy for responding to all such reports;
(c) clear and easily understood explanations and examples of the types of behavior that constitute sexual harassment; and
(d) a hyperlink to the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy. 5. Once ASD adopts the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy, ASD will not modify or rescind the Policy, or adopt any additional policies that relate to or impact sexual harassment during the period of the Consent Decree without the prior written approval of the United States. The United States may reject proposed modifications, rescissions, or adoptions that are not consistent with the terms or spirit of this Consent Decree or applicable federal civil rights laws. C. District and School-Based Equity Coordinators 1. ASD, with the assistance of the Consultant, shall hire or appoint qualified individuals to serve as the District and School-Based Equity Coordinators knowledgeable in all aspects of Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, and the OCR Guidance as applied to school districts. The District-wide Equity Coordinator will serve in a full-time or full-time equivalent capacity and may be hired or appointed from the ranks of existing ASD administrators. 2. The District shall designate at least one administrator or employee at each ASD school to serve as School-Based Equity Coordinators.
Page 17 of 36

3. All Equity Coordinators will be hired, appointed, or designated based on their interest in, previous experience with, and knowledge of, at minimum, Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, and the OCR Guidance.
4. The District Equity Coordinator, who shall be independent of the District’s legal counsel and its insurance carrier, shall have, at minimum, the following responsibilities:
a) Investigate and resolve sexual harassment complaints and allegations within the time frames set forth in the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy, see discussion supra at V.B.1.c.
b) Immediately inform relevant and appropriate ASD Personnel – including but not limited to the general and special education teachers, substitute teachers, all other teachers in the particular school; guidance counselors; school psychologists; principals; and assistant principals – when a complaint or allegation of sexual harassment has been received, including the nature of, and the factual circumstances that gave rise to, the complaint or allegation.
c) Provide or direct counseling and support services to students who have been sexually harassed and, as appropriate, to student harassers.
d) Within one (1) business day of becoming aware of an incident of sexual harassment, notify the parents of all suspected victims of the sexual harassment as well as the parents of the suspected sexual harasser as required by the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy.
e) Notify all suspected victims of sexual harassment as well as suspected sexual harassers and their parents when the investigation has concluded, and of the findings and resolution of the investigation. However, when such allegations involve
Page 18 of 36

younger students, the findings and resolution may be provided to parents but not the students. Such information shall not include any student education records, the provision of which would violate the privacy rights of individual students under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”).
f) Recommend appropriate, fair, and equitable action for the harassing student consistent with the District’s student discipline policy and Code of Conduct.
g) Designate the ASD Personnel responsible for administration of any student discipline following instances of sexual harassment.
h) When required by law and where appropriate, forward complaints of sexual harassment to relevant outside service agencies, including but not limited to law enforcement, see discussion infra at V.G.
i) Document and maintain complete records of all sexual harassment complaints and investigations in accordance with the Sexual Harassment Reporting System, discussed infra at V.F.
j) Timely notify all ASD Personnel, students, and parents if revisions are made to the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy.
k) Design, administer, and conduct all sexual harassment training, professional development, and parent information sessions as discussed infra at V.D.
l) Design and administer a survey instrument by March 1, 2013, that will gauge parents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the District’s investigation and resolution of sexual harassment complaints and of transparency on the District’s part in communicating about sexual harassment and the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy. This survey will be disseminated to ASD parents electronically and in hard copy on an annual
Page 19 of 36

basis for the duration of this Consent Decree. The District Equity Coordinator shall review and analyze the parent survey results on an annual basis and will report those results and any proposed revisions to the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy as a result of the survey to the United States within fourteen (14) business days after completing analysis of the survey results.
m) Review on an annual basis the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy and recommend to the United States revisions to that Policy in accordance with Section V.B.3., supra.
n) For each instance in which an ASD school or ASD did not follow the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy when responding to an incident or complaint of sexual harassment, record all corrective action taken by the District as described in Section V.H.2.d., infra.
o) The obligations of the District Equity Coordinator shall not preclude parallel investigations by the District.
p) Additional requirements set forth in Section V.C.6., infra. 5. The School-Based Equity Coordinators shall have, at minimum, the following duties with regard to their respective schools:
a) Receive complaints of sexual harassment pertaining to students enrolled in the school and pertaining to incidents that occur in the school building, on the school property, at school-sponsored events or about which the School-Based Equity Coordinator has or reasonably should have knowledge.
b) Inform the District Equity Coordinator of all sexual harassment complaints received.
Page 20 of 36

c) With the assistance of the District Equity Coordinator, initiate buildinglevel investigations of incidents and alleged incidents of sexual harassment in accordance with the Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures described supra at V.B.1.c.
d) Assist the District Equity Coordinator to complete investigations into incidents and alleged incidents of sexual harassment and to resolve complaints of sexual harassment in accordance with Section V.C.4.a., supra.
e) Additional requirements set forth in V.C.6., infra. 6. Both the District and the School-Based Equity Coordinators:
a) shall be available to meet upon request with ASD students about sexual harassment complaints, questions, or concerns;
b) shall not have other job responsibilities that will, or have the potential to, create a conflict of interest (for example, Equity Coordinators will not also serve as disciplinary hearing officers or legal counsel for the District); and
c) shall receive in the first year of implementation of this Consent Decree information and training from the Consultant about the legal obligations of the District and best practices for preventing and responding to sexual harassment incidents and allegations, as set forth in pertinent part in Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, and the OCR Guidance and as required by the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy. 7. Prior to hiring or appointing any Equity Coordinators, ASD will interview interested individuals to determine whether they are qualified to perform the requirements of the position as set forth in this Consent Decree.
Page 21 of 36

8. The United States shall approve ASD’s selection of the District Equity Coordinator as follows:
a) By the start of the 2012-2013 school year, ASD shall, in writing, provide the United States with the name, contact information, and resume or curriculum vitae of at least one individual it proposes to hire or appoint as the District Equity Coordinator. ASD may alternately provide the United States with a list of multiple potential Equity Coordinators (including their names, contact information, and resume or curriculum vitae), but if it does so, it must list the individuals in order of preference starting with the most preferred individual.
b) Within ten (10) business days of receiving notice of the proposed District Equity Coordinator, the United States shall inform ASD in writing as to whether or not it agrees to the hiring or appointment of the person proposed by ASD to serve as the District Equity Coordinator. The United States’ approval shall not unreasonably be withheld.
c) If the United States does not agree to the hiring or appointment of the person proposed by ASD, then the parties will continue working together to designate a mutually agreeable District Equity Coordinator. Any delays in hiring or appointment of the person identified by ASD as the District Equity Coordinator will not excuse any party from fulfilling any other obligation set forth in this Consent Decree.
d) Following the United States’ approval of the District Equity Coordinator, ASD shall hire or appoint the approved individual as District Equity Coordinator within fourteen (14) calendar days.
Page 22 of 36

9. By the start of the 2012-2013 school year, ASD shall select all School-Based Equity Coordinators. Within five (5) business days of the selection of the School-Based Equity Coordinators, ASD shall provide for the United States’ review a list of all School-Based Equity Coordinators, including the School-Based Equity Coordinators’ names, titles, and qualifications for the position. D. Sexual Harassment Training and Professional Development
1. The District shall, through the Consultant and the District Equity Coordinator, provide sexual harassment training and professional development for all ASD Personnel that shall include:
a) detailed information about, and specific examples of, conduct that constitutes sexual harassment;
b) the legal obligations of ASD Personnel under the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy, Title IX, the Title IX implementing regulations, the OCR Guidance, and any relevant mandatory child abuse reporting statutes to report, investigate, and resolve all complaints and allegations of sexual harassment;
c) detailed information about the investigative and reporting obligations of the District and ASD Personnel set forth in the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy;
d) the process and timeframes for addressing sexual harassment complaints and allegations;
e) information for specific ASD Personnel, as deemed necessary by the Consultant, about their responsibilities under the District’s procedures regarding the registration, enrollment, monitoring, and supervision of students who have a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students, see Section V.E.1., infra;
Page 23 of 36

f) a review of student confidentiality requirements, including specific descriptions of ASD’s obligations to maintain student confidentiality so that personally identifiable information about students shall not be revealed to non-ASD Personnel, but may be shared among ASD Personnel to appropriately address and protect ASD students from sexual harassment;
g) detailed information about when incidents of student-on-student sexual harassment in ASD schools should be reported to outside agencies and the appropriate circumstances for doing so;
h) discussion, interactive discussion and/or role play, and the opportunity for questions and answers;
i) the contact information for the District and School-Based Equity Coordinators responsible for addressing complaints of sexual harassment; and
j) other topics deemed germane by the Consultant and the District Equity Coordinator. 2. The sexual harassment training and professional development shall occur at regular intervals of time to be determined by the Consultant, but not less than once per year. 3. The sexual harassment training and professional development will be distinct from other ASD training and professional development. 4. All new employees, substitute teachers, temporary teachers, and other staff who have unsupervised, direct contact with children must receive the sexual harassment training and professional development described in this Section V.D. within thirty (30) days of beginning their employment in the District and, in any event, before such staff may commence providing services to ASD students or working in ASD schools. ASD may provide the sexual harassment
Page 24 of 36

training and professional development required by this paragraph to new employees, substitute teachers, temporary teachers, and other staff who have unsupervised, direct contact with children by virtual means, including but not limited to online programming through the District’s website or through DVD recording or other visual recording, as long as the District ensures and verifies that the new employees, substitute teachers, temporary teachers, and other staff who have unsupervised, direct contact with children have completed the training and professional development within thirty (30) days of beginning their employment in the District.
5. The District will ensure that all contractors have a criminal background clearance prior to unsupervised, direct contact with children.
6. The District shall provide, on an annual basis for all ASD students, age- and developmentally-appropriate training about sexual harassment, including what conduct constitutes sexual harassment, who to contact if they witness or are subjected to sexual harassment, and how to inform an adult when they believe sexual harassment may have occurred.
7. The District shall provide, on an annual basis, sexual harassment information sessions for all interested parents of ASD students about the ASD Sexual Harassment Policy. The information sessions also shall provide parents with the contact information of the District Equity Coordinator and all School-Based Equity Coordinators; information about sexual harassment complaint process, including the completion of any necessary forms; and detailed information about the process to appeal the findings of sexual harassment investigations or the remedies imposed by ASD upon completion of its investigation and response process.
8. The District is responsible for any and all costs associated with the sexual harassment training and professional development.
Page 25 of 36

E. Additional ASD Obligations 1. Students With a Confirmed History of Sexual Harassment Toward Other Students a) To ensure that an ASD student with a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students is appropriately monitored and supervised, the District shall work with the Consultant to develop policies and procedures to identify such students, and to monitor and supervise any students who have repeatedly engaged in sexual harassment. The requirements of Title IX, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990, FERPA, and applicable state and federal laws shall govern ASD’s responsibility under this paragraph. b) Whenever a student enrolls in ASD from a school outside of the District or transfers between two schools within ASD, the principal and/or another designated administrator at the receiving school shall review the student’s complete cumulative education file within ten (10) business days of receipt of records in order to determine if the student has a confirmed history of sexual harassment of other students. c) If the cumulative education file of a new student enrollee or transfer student contains information that indicates the student poses a risk of sexual harassment for other students, the District Equity Coordinator and School-Based Equity Coordinator at the receiving school must be notified within two (2) business days of that determination and will work with ASD counseling and psychological support personnel and all other appropriate staff members, including the student’s teachers, to develop and implement policies and procedures to counsel, monitor, and supervise the student in a fair and equitable fashion at all times.
Page 26 of 36

2. Prohibition Against Imposing Obligations on Harassed Students a) Language from the Code of Conduct and the ASD School Board Manual
requiring sexually harassed or allegedly sexually harassed students to “inform the harasser that the harasser’s conduct is unwelcome” or issue a “stern rebuke to the harasser,” or to take such measures before filing a complaint of sexual harassment with the school or the District shall be stricken. See, e.g., Code of Conduct at 21. The ASD Sexual Harassment Policy and the Investigation and Response Procedures are prohibited from imposing any such obligation on a student who has, or alleges that he or she has, been sexually harassed. F. Sexual Harassment Reporting System 1. The District shall, through the Consultant, create and implement a Sexual Harassment Reporting System that may, at ASD’s option, be incorporated into its existing student data and information reporting systems, and that documents and maintains complete records of all sexual harassment complaints and investigations including, but not limited to, the following information and materials:
a) each complaint or allegation, including the date and form in which the complaint or allegation was made;
b) specific details about the incident, including the date(s), time(s), nature, content, and location(s) of the harassment incident;
c) the date(s) the alleged harassed student and harasser student were interviewed;
d) the date that any relevant documentary evidence was obtained;
Page 27 of 36

e) any written or oral statements, correspondence, interview notes, and any other documentation received from the student harassed, the alleged harasser(s), the parent(s) of the student harassed and/or the alleged harasser(s); any witnesses; and/or person reporting the harassment;
f) the date, location and contact information for the ASD Personnel member who obtained information about the alleged harassment;
g) documentation of any prior incidents of sexual harassment involving the student(s) subject to the harassment or the alleged harasser;
h) ASD investigating officials’ findings and/or reports and the basis for those findings and/or reports;
i) a full description of the District’s response to the incident, including but not limited to discipline referral forms and discipline information for the student harasser;
j) supporting documentation, including but not limited to interview notes, investigation report or memorandum; and
k) documentation of all appeals proceedings, which may include written findings of facts, transcripts, or audio recordings. 2. The ASD Sexual Harassment Reporting System shall maintain the confidentiality of all ASD students, except for the District to fulfill its reporting obligations to the United States pursuant to this Consent Decree, see discussion infra at V.H. G. Reporting Between ASD and Outside Agencies 1. ASD, through the Consultant and the District Equity Coordinator, will develop and implement policies and procedures describing when ASD Personnel must notify individuals
Page 28 of 36

and agencies outside of the District (e.g., local police, hospital, child protection agencies) of sexual harassment alleged to have occurred within ASD.
2. ASD will propose to outside service agencies in the Allentown and Lehigh Valley area an information-sharing agreement with regard to students who have a confirmed history of sexual harassment toward other students, as discussed supra at V.E.1., that ASD will take all steps necessary to receive from the outside agencies notification of such confirmed history of sexual harassment, and ASD and the outside agencies will share relevant information about such students so that ASD may provide counseling, monitoring, and supervision to identified students to prevent sexual harassment from occurring in any of the District’s education programs. H. Reporting to the United States
1. The District will provide all requisite documents and information to the United States set forth in this Section as well as the information required pursuant to Sections V.B.3. & 4., V.C.4.m., and V.C.8. & 9., supra, in electronic form, wherever possible, usable by the United States and if not usable by the United States in electronic form, in paper form, in accordance with the timelines set forth herein.2 If ASD, despite its good faith efforts, is unable to meet any timeline set forth in this Consent Decree, it will immediately notify the United States of the delay and the reason therefore. The United States may provide a reasonable extension of the timeline at issue.
2 ASD shall provide the United States with one copy of all documents and information it is required to produce to the United States pursuant to this Consent Decree, directed to the following attorney:
Melissa J. Michaud U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section, PHB 4300
601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20004
Page 29 of 36

2. On an annual basis, prior to July 15 of each school year and for the duration of this Consent Decree, the District will provide documentation of its compliance with this Consent Decree through written compliance reports produced to the United States. Each compliance report will cover the school year just completed, and will include all documents, information, and other materials generated or maintained by the District regarding sexual harassment, including the following:
a) All sexual harassment training, professional development, and parent information session materials and curricula.
b) The date and duration of each sexual harassment training, professional development, and information session required by this Consent Decree; copies of all agendas for such trainings, professional development, and information sessions; and copies of any materials distributed, including any multimedia presentations.
c) A summary of all reported sexual harassment incidents as recorded in the Sexual Harassment Reporting System, described supra at V.F.
d) Certification by the District Equity Coordinator that s/he has reviewed all incident reports, discipline referrals, informal complaints, and formal complaints related to incidents and alleged incidents of sexual harassment, and all documentation related to such incidents, to determine whether all incidents, allegations, or complaints related to sexual harassment were properly identified, investigated, and resolved consistent with District policies and procedures.
e) Certification by the District Equity Coordinator that all ASD Personnel received each required sexual harassment training and professional development,
Page 30 of 36

described supra at V.D., and the District’s plan for providing sexual harassment training and professional development to any individuals who did not receive it.
f) Certification by ASD that it has fully and sufficiently addressed all incidents alleging sexual harassment.
g) Copies of all supporting documentation shall be maintained at the District Equity Coordinator’s office for review, upon request by the United States. I. Enforcement 1. The United States will monitor and review compliance with this Consent Decree and may enforce this Consent Decree if it believes that this Consent Decree, or any portion of it, has been violated. 2. As part of its responsibility to monitor and review compliance with this Consent Decree, the United States may observe trainings, interview ASD Personnel and students (including ex parte communications with students and employees other than school and District administrators), and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for the United States to monitor ASD and to determine whether ASD is in compliance with this Consent Decree. Request by the United States for additional reports or data necessary to determine if ASD is in compliance with this Consent Decree shall not be withheld. Also, with seven (7) calendar days advance notice, the United States may visit any school in the District to monitor compliance and the District agrees to provide full access to the United States to perform such monitoring. 3. In the event that the United States believes that ASD has violated any provision of this Consent Decree, the United States will provide written notice (including reasonable particulars) of such violation, and ASD shall then respond to such notice and/or cure such noncompliance within thirty (30) calendar days. The parties shall negotiate in good faith in an
Page 31 of 36

attempt to resolve any dispute relating thereto before the United States seeks relief from this Court.
4. Where there is a requirement in this Consent Decree that the District submit material to the United States for approval, and the District is unable to obtain approval that it believes has been unreasonably withheld, ASD will raise its concerns in writing with the United States and the United States shall then respond to such notice and/or issue the approval within thirty (30) calendar days. The parties shall negotiate in good faith in attempt to resolve any dispute relating thereto before seeking relief from this Court.
5. If any dispute under this Consent Decree is not resolved, any aggrieved party may petition the Court for relief.
6. This Consent Decree shall be enforceable only by the United States and ASD, and nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to give rise to an action by a third party to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree. J. Miscellaneous
1. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the date of entry. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Decree to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree, after which time the case may be dismissed with prejudice. Either party to this Consent Decree may apply to the Court for such further orders as may be necessary for, or consistent with, the enforcement of this Consent Decree, including but not limited to the extension of the Consent Decree, for good cause shown, for two (2) more years.
2. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement by the parties, and no other statement, promise, or agreement, either written or oral, made by any party or agents of any
Page 32 of 36

party, that is not contained in this written Consent Decree shall be enforceable regarding the matters raised in this Decree.
3. This Consent Decree is final and has binding effect on the parties, including all principals, agents, executors, administrators, representatives, employees, successors in interest, beneficiaries, assigns, and legal representatives thereof.
4. Failure of the United States to seek enforcement of this Consent Decree pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision shall not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to that instance or provision or any other such instances or provisions.
5. This agreement does not affect the District’s duty to comply with provisions of Title IX or any other law.
6. The undersigned representatives of the parties certify that they are authorized to enter into and consent to the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind the parties to it.
7. The parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, litigation is not “reasonably foreseeable” concerning the matters described herein. To the extent that any party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described herein, the party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. Nothing in this paragraph relieves any party of any other obligations imposed by this Consent Decree.
8. Notwithstanding Section V.J.7., the District is expected to preserve documents, including electronically stored information, used to compile all necessary reports and information for inspection by the United States as set forth in Section V.H., supra.
Page 33 of 36

9. The parties will bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this litigation and resultant Consent Decree.
10. Neither this Consent Decree nor a violation of this Consent Decree shall serve as the basis for liability of ASD or its agents or officers, or be admissible in any proceeding, except in a proceeding brought by the United States.
11. If any term or provision of this Decree is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Decree shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect, provided however, that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the parties, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to adopt such mutually agreeable amendments to this Decree as may be necessary to restore the parties as closely as possible to the initially agreed-upon relative rights and obligations.
SO ORDERED, this ____day of ____________, 2012.
___________________________________ THE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND United States District Judge
Page 34 of 36

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
ZANE DAVID MEMEGER United States Attorney Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ANNETIA FOSTER GIVHAN Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Pennsylvania 615 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 191 06 Tel: (215) 861-8319 Fax: (215) 861-8618

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ANURIMA BHARGAVA, Section Chief KATHL.EEN DEVINE, Senior Counsel
Afs@'m-@· vLt.:cbo..J,e
MEL SA J. M AUD
Trial Attorney Educational Opportunities Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Patrick Henry Building, Suite 4300 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 514-4092 Fax: (202) 514-8337

Page 35 of36

'- \
, ':' '\ FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ".or" ....,,'
Page 36 of36

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v.

:

:

NO. 06-cv-1926

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

et al

:

GOLDEN, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JULY 8, 2009

Before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Leave to Intervene in this action, which was

filed on June 18, 2009. In its Motion, the United States contends that it is entitled to intervene as of

right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alternatively, the United States

argues that the Court should permit intervention on the basis that the United States has satisfied the

requirements of permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States seeks to intervene in this case to support the sexual harassment claims asserted

by Plaintiffs against Defendant Allentown School District (“ASD” or “School District”) pursuant to Title

IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. (See U.S. Proposed Compl. in Intervention ¶ 1); see also 20

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. The United States’ Proposed Complaint in Intervention is solely against ASD

pursuant to Title IX. (See U.S. Proposed Compl. in Intervention ¶ 2). ASD is the only Defendant

opposing the United States’ request to intervene. For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ Motion

for Leave to Intervene (Doc. No. 131) is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The claims in this action arise out of a series of alleged sexual assaults perpetrated by Defendant

F.H.—a twelve-year old boy who transferred to Central Elementary School (“CES”) in Allentown at the

beginning of the 2003 school year—against four first-grade boys in bathroom stalls at CES. (Second

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38, 39, 49; Doc. No. 124). The alleged assaults took place between December 2003 and March 2004. (Id. at ¶ 39).1 Plaintiffs, the four minor victims of these alleged assaults, brought this action against ASD and several other defendants asserting various federal and state law claims. Plaintiffs are asserting two federal claims in this case: (1) one count against various defendants alleging violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to bodily integrity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) one count against ASD alleging violations of Title IX. (Id. ¶¶ 69-93).
This case was brought in May 2006. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in an effort to include, among other new claims, a count alleging violations of Title IX. (Doc. No. 93). After extensive briefing and oral argument, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to include this Title IX count against ASD on February 26, 2009. See Doe v. Allentown Sch. Dist., No. 06-1926, 72 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1021, 2009 WL 536671, at *3-5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2009); (Doc. No. 117). On March 9, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which included their Title IX claim against ASD. (Doc. No. 118). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a corrected Second Amended Complaint on April 21, 2009. (Doc. No. 124).
STANDARD Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who...claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 24(a)(2) to require an intervening applicant to prove the following four elements: (1) a timely application for leave to intervene; (2) a sufficient interest
1
For a more detailed description of the facts alleged in this case, see Doe v. Allentown Sch. Dist., No. 061926, 2007 WL 2814587, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2007) (Doc. No. 79).
-2-

in the litigation; (3) a threat that the interest will be impaired or affected, as a practical matter, by the disposition of the action; and (4) inadequate representation of the prospective intervenor’s interest by existing parties to the litigation. Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 969 (3d Cir. 1998); Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 947 (1987). “Although these requirements are intertwined, each must be met to intervene as of right.” Harris, 820 F.2d at 596.
ANALYSIS The United States has satisfied the four elements necessary to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2). A. Timeliness of Application The timeliness of a motion to intervene is determined from all the circumstances by the trial court in the exercise of its sound discretion. Mountain Top Condo. Ass’n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361, 369 (3d Cir. 1995). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has articulated three factors for district courts to consider in determining whether a motion to intervene is timely: (1) how far the proceedings have gone when the movant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties; and (3) the reason for the delay. Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501, 506 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 921 (1976); see also Mountain Top, 72 F.3d at 369. An analysis of these factors demonstrates that the United States’ Motion for Leave to Intervene is timely. Though this case is over three years old, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim against ASD was only added in March 2009 (Doc. No. 118)—just over three months before the United States filed its request to intervene in support of this claim. Discovery in this matter has only just begun. Paper discovery began in May 2009, and depositions are scheduled to commence in July and August 2009. (ASD Br. at 2). A Rule 16 Scheduling Conference was conducted on June 18, 2009, and the United States was permitted to participate in this Conference. (Doc. No. 132). Additionally, a Scheduling Order was issued on June 30,
-3-

2009. (Doc. No. 136). As this case is in the early stages of protracted discovery and is not slated for trial until April
2011, any prejudice to ASD is minimal and not, as ASD contends, “severe.” (ASD’s Br. at 8). The United States’ intervention poses little threat of interfering with the current discovery schedule set by the parties, especially since the United States’ Proposed Complaint in Intervention does not add a new cause of action. Indeed, the United States asserted during the Court’s June 18, 2009 Rule 16 Scheduling Conference that it “was prepared to adhere to any schedule that is set forth by the Court . . . and the parties.” The United States also agreed to meet any deposition dates that have already been set by the parties. The Court has no reason to disbelieve such statements and will take the United States at its word that its involvement will not delay this case. In short, ASD’s contention that the United States’ intervention will further “complicate the discovery [of] an already complicated litigation process” is simply not sufficient to render the United States’ intervention either untimely or prejudicial. (ASD’s Br. at 8); see Lopez v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 07-799, 2008 WL 4831318, at *3-4 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2009) (permitting intervention of United States to redress Title IX violations and holding that the United States’ intervention request was timely where a comprehensive factual record had already been developed, discovery was almost complete, and the United States asserted that its involvement would not cause any modification of the scheduling deadlines). B. Sufficient Interest in the Litigation
An applicant for intervention must demonstrate that its interest in the litigation is “a legal interest as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character.” Harris, 820 F.2d at 601 (internal quotations omitted). The Third Circuit has further explained the “sufficient interest” requirement of Rule 26(a)(2): “[T]he polestar for evaluating a claim for intervention is always whether the proposed intervenor’s interest is direct or remote. Due regard for efficient conduct of the litigation requires that
-4-

intervenors should have an interest that is specific to them, is capable of definition, and will be directly affected in a substantially concrete fashion by the relief sought. The interest may not be remote or attenuated.” See Kleissler, 157 F.3d at 972.
The United States asserts that it has “a direct and substantial interest in ensuring that recipients of federal funds, such as the Allentown School District, do not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX.” (U.S. Br. at 3). The United States further notes that it “plays a central role in the enforcement of Title IX” and “has an interest in ensuring that its enforcement of Title IX in subsequent matters is not undermined by adverse precedent generated in this case.” (Id. at 3-4). However, ASD asserts that the United States does not have a sufficient interest in this lawsuit, contending that “[t]he allegations in this lawsuit do not involve systemic failure or lack of policy infrastructure”; rather, the United States’ Complaint in Intervention only addresses four isolated incidents—incidents which have not been repeated. (ASD Br. at 4-5). ASD further cites the fact that the individual ASD Defendants allegedly involved in this matter have ceased working for the School District. (Id. at 5).
The United States has a sufficient interest in this litigation. Several courts have held that the proper enforcement of Title IX, by ensuring that the recipients of federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of sex, is a sufficient interest. Courts have also recognized an interest on the part of the United States to ensure that federal funds are not given to entities that fail to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws. See, e.g., A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central Sch. Dist., 224 F.R.D. 144, 156-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“The Government certainly has a legally protectable interest in assuring that all students . . . are protected by Title IX.”). ASD’s claim that Plaintiffs’ allegations are merely the product of isolated incidents does not undercut the sufficiency of the United States’ stated interests. The United States certainly has an interest in determining whether ASD has policies, either explicitly or implicitly, that foster discriminatory conduct in violation of Title IX. Notwithstanding ASD’s contention that most,
-5-

if not all, of the individual ASD Defendants in this case have ceased working for the School District, the existence of alleged discriminatory policies on the part of ASD goes beyond the individual ASD Defendants in this case and broadly implicates the School District’s culture of Title IX compliance. The United States’ interest in this case is further supported by the fact that Congress has delegated to federal departments and agencies both the authority to promulgate regulations to implement Title IX and the responsibility to ensure that recipients of federal funds comply with the statute and its regulations. See 20 U.S.C. § 1682. C. Threat that Interest Will Be Impaired By Disposition of the Action
“In order to prove an interest is impeded, the third part of the intervention test, the applicant must demonstrate a tangible threat to its legal interest.” United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1185 n.15 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted). In other words, a proposed intervenor must demonstrate that his or her interest “might become affected or impaired, as a practical matter, by the disposition of the action in [his or her] absence.” See Mountain Top, 72 F.3d at 368 (citing Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d at 1185 n.15).
The United States has demonstrated that its interest might be impaired by the disposition of this action if the United States is not permitted to intervene. ASD argues that the United States need not be involved in this case because the “United States can do an investigation and receive the materials it seeks without the need to intervene.” (ASD Br. at 5). However, whether the United States has an alternative avenue is not the standard for intervention; rather the Court must focus on the impairment of the United States’ interests absent intervention. See Lopez, 2008 WL 4831318, at *5 (“[W]hether or not there is any alternative avenue for the movant is not the standard, but rather whether the movant’s interest may be impaired absent intervention.”). Here, among the other interests discussed above, the United States’ interest in stare decisis may be undermined in the absence of the United States’ involvement in this case.
-6-

As one court has concluded, “an adverse judgment could interfere with the Government’s ability to enforce Title IX . . . particularly in cases where a school district’s response to allegations of sexual harassment proves inadequate to stop the harassment from continuing.” See A.B., 224 F.R.D. at 157; see also Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1123 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[T]his factor may be satisfied if, for example, a determination of the action in the applicants’ absence will have a significant stare decisis effect on their claims . . . .”); Harris, 820 F.2d at 601 (“Courts thus have found that an applicant has a sufficient interest to intervene when the action will have a significant stare decisis effect on the applicant’s rights . . . .”). D. Adequacy of Representation of United States’ Interest by Existing Parties
As to whether Plaintiffs will adequately represent the United States’ interests in the absence of intervention by the United States, this element “is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate.” Mountain Top, 72 F.3d at 368 (quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972)). “[T]he burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.” Id. (quoting Trbovich, 404 U.S. at 538 n.10). A prospective intervenor’s rights “are not adequately represented where: (1) the interest of the applicant so diverges from those of the representative party that the representative party cannot devote proper attention to the applicant’s interest; (2) there is collusion between the existing parties; or (3) the representative party is not diligently prosecuting the suit.” Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d at 1185 n.15; see also In re Comty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277, 315 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that there is a presumption of adequate representation).
The United States does not argue that there is collusion between the existing parties or that Plaintiffs are not diligently prosecuting their case. Thus, the question before the Court is whether the interests of Plaintiffs and the United States diverge sufficiently such that Plaintiffs cannot devote proper attention to the United States’ interests. Though the United States and Plaintiffs present similar, if not
-7-

identical, Title IX claims, “[t]he ‘tactical similarity’ of the ‘legal contentions’ of a current party with that of a proposed intervenor . . . does not assure adequate representation.” See Sierra Club v. Robertson, 960 F.2d 83, 86 (8th Cir. 1992).
The United States has demonstrated that the existing parties to the litigation will inadequately represent the United States’ interests in this suit. Governmental entities have litigation interests that are inherently different from the interests of private litigants, as governmental entities intervene to protect the interests of a broad constituency of citizens. See id. (discussing State’s interests versus interests of private parties). Plaintiffs only represent their individual interests and do not necessarily have an interest to compel ASD to engage in comprehensive corrective measures. See A.B., 224 F.R.D. at 157 (“The Plaintiffs, despite alleging a pattern of on-going sexual harassment, only represent their individual interests.”). Conversely, the United States represents the public in its totality and has a broad interest in ensuring that school districts that receive federal funds comply with Title IX prospectively. See Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1208 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The government must represent the broad public interest, not just the economic concerns of the timber industry.”).
Plaintiffs are not seeking equitable relief under Title IX. As a result, in the event Plaintiffs are successful in the absence of intervention by the United States, this lawsuit will not result in ASD being compelled to implement corrective action that would ensure that students are protected from discriminatory practices. The United States’ Complaint in Intervention, however, seeks equitable relief, thereby requiring ASD—if it acted unlawfully—to implement systemic changes that will protect ASD’s students from unlawful discrimination and harassment. ASD notes that “Plaintiffs are not barred from seeking injunctive relief.” (ASD Br. at 6). While this may be the case, Plaintiffs are seeking no such relief, which itself is indicative of the differing interests held by Plaintiffs and the United States. Accordingly, the United States has met its minimal burden under this element of Rule 24(a)(2). See
-8-

A.B., 224 F.R.D. at 157 (noting that disposition without the involvement of the United States “could impair the Government’s interest in preventing further discrimination by the District because the private Plaintiffs could agree to settle this action for money damages without seeking the type of institutional changes by the District that the Government considers necessary to ensure that students are protected from unlawful discrimination and harassment in the future”); Lopez, 2008 WL 4831318, at *6 (noting that “the plaintiff may understandably concentrate on seeking compensatory damages—either through litigation or settlement—to the potential detriment of claims for injunctive relief”).
In conclusion, the United States is permitted to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As addressed above, the Court takes the United States at its word that it is prepared to comply with all scheduling deadlines set forth by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee’s note (1966) (noting that intervention as of right “may be subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive among other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of the proceedings”). Because the United States has established the elements necessary for intervention as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), the Court need not address permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
An appropriate Order will be docketed.
-9-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants

: : : CIVIL ACTION : : : NO. 06-CV-1926 : : : :

GOLDEN, J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 81) of

this Court’s September 21, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket No. 79) dismissing

with prejudice Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims in Counts II, III, and IV of the Amended

Complaint. These claims allege that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of

age, socio-economic status, and race by denying Plaintiffs the protective services and policies

that Defendants provided other Allentown School District students. (Amd. Compl. at ¶¶ 78138).1 Plaintiffs specifically ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(g), to grant Plaintiffs one of the following forms of relief: (1)

reinstatement of Counts II, III, and IV; (2) dismissal of Counts II, III, and IV without prejudice

while granting Plaintiffs leave to further amend the Amended Complaint; or (3) dismissal of

1 Count II specifically alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to equal protection by discriminating against them based on their age. Count III alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to equal protection by discriminating against them based on their socio-economic status. Count IV alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to equal protection by discriminating against them based on their race.

Counts II, III, and IV without prejudice to permit discovery with respect to the alleged equal protection violations and permit amendment after discovery is completed. (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 2).
The Court has carefully considered the written submissions of the parties. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
STANDARD “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). “[A] judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [entered judgment]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A party seeking to establish that a clear error was made must “persuade [the Court] not only that [the Court’s] prior decision was wrong, but that it was clearly wrong and that adherence to that decision would create manifest injustice.” In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 158 F.3d 711, 720-21 (3d Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs do not invoke the first two grounds, but rather contend that the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims should be altered out of a need to prevent “clear errors of law and fact and to prevent a manifest injustice.” (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 6). As a general matter, because of the interest in finality, “courts should grant motions for reconsideration sparingly.” Rottmund v. Cont’l Assurance Co., 813 F. Supp. 1104, 1107 (E.D. Pa. 1992). A motion for reconsideration “addresses only factual and legal matters that the court may have overlooked . . . . It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ‘ask the Court to
2

rethink what [it] had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., No. 91-5286, 1993 WL 90412, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 1993)). A motion for reconsideration is improper when it is used to relitigate matters already argued and disposed of or to present previously available evidence or new arguments. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 559 F. Supp. 2d 548, 574 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 ORDER In its September 21, 2007 Order, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had only pled facts alleging disparate impact—namely, that Defendants failed to institute protective services and policies benefitting Plaintiffs, while simultaneously instituting such protective services and policies for older, wealthier, and non-minority students—without pleading facts supporting that such disparities were the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Doe v. Allentown Sch. Dist., No. 06-1926, 2007 WL 2814587, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2007). The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that intentional discrimination was properly pled, noting that Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants “intentionally classified [Plaintiffs] for differential treatment” amounted to “mere legal conclusions.” Id. at *6. Accordingly, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear command that a plaintiff must allege intentional or purposeful discrimination by the defendant to assert a valid claim under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims. Id. at *7, 11; see Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976) (“[O]ur cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact.”) (emphasis in original); Hernandez v. New York, 500
3

U.S. 352, 372-73 (1991) (“An unwavering line of cases from this Court holds that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires state action motivated by discriminatory intent; the disproportionate effects of state action are not sufficient to establish such a violation.”) (O’Connor, J., concurring).
DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs’ Request for Reinstatement of Counts II, III, and IV.
Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Reconsideration that Counts II, III, and IV should be reinstated because the Court “misunderstood the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint . . . and erroneously disregarded the relevance of certain facts” which “support the conclusion or reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment in question was intentional.” (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 6-7). In particular, Plaintiffs contend that the Court overlooked several examples from their Amended Complaint of how Plaintiffs were treated differently from other students which support the reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment was intentional. Id. at 7.
First, this argument constitutes an attempt to relitigate matters already argued and disposed of—specifically, whether the allegations in Counts II, III, and IV allow the Court to reasonably infer the existence of intentional discrimination. Indeed, in consideration of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims (Docket Nos. 17 and 18), the Court carefully considered all factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, all legal arguments presented by the parties, and all remedies available to cure Plaintiffs’ deficiently-pled equal
4

protection counts.2 Second, the Court in its September 21, 2007 Order did not overlook any of Plaintiffs’
cited examples and, rather, carefully determined whether each factual allegation in the Amended Complaint created a reasonable inference of intentional discrimination. The Court correctly concluded that these cited examples did not create such an inference, but were possible evidence of “disparities [that] may be the product of bad policy or basic unfairness.” Doe, 2007 WL 2814587, at *7. As the Court accurately noted, Plaintiffs’ effort to plead intentional discrimination through the sole use of this disparate impact evidence amounts to a legal conclusion that is insufficient to state an equal protection cause of action. See Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[A] court need not credit a complaint’s ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions’ when deciding a motion to dismiss.”). Simply stated, Plaintiffs cannot bootstrap their way into an equal protection claim by only showing evidence of disparate impact. See Stehney v. Perry, 101 F.3d 925, 937-38 (3d Cir. 1996) (affirming district court’s dismissal of equal protection count where plaintiff did not properly allege discriminatory intent); see also Clarke v. Eisenhower, 199 F. App’x 174, 175 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1981(a) and § 1985(3) claims where plaintiff did not allege any facts that allowed the court to infer intentional discrimination or the existence of racial or otherwise class-based animus); Limehouse v. Delaware, 144 F. App’x 921, 923 (3d Cir. 2005)
2 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on October 7, 2006 (Docket No. 28). A reply brief was filed by Allentown School District on November 13, 2006 (Docket No. 40), and Plaintiffs filed a surreply brief on November 20, 2006 (Docket No. 43). Oral argument was held on January 18, 2007 (Docket No. 67). Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Memorandum on January 25, 2007 (Docket No. 65), and Defendant Allentown School District filed an opposition to this Supplemental Memorandum on February 2, 2007 (Docket No. 66).
5

(affirming dismissal of § 1985(2) and (3) claims because there was “no evidence sufficient to raise an inference of a race-based motive for the defendants’ actions”); Evans v. Chichester Sch. Dist., 533 F. Supp. 2d 523, 536 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s § 1985(3) equal protection claim because plaintiff’s “conclusion [that] the defendants acted ‘on account of her race’ does not sufficiently allege invidiously discriminatory animus”). Accordingly, the Court’s decision to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV did not constitute a manifest injustice. B. Plaintiffs’ Request that the Court Grant Plaintiffs Leave to Amend the Amended
Complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the Court dismiss Counts II, III, and IV without prejudice and grant Plaintiffs leave to further amend their Amended Complaint to cure their defective equal protection allegations. (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 2). “A district court may deny leave to amend a complaint if a plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the opposing party. Moreover, the court may deny a request if the movant fails to provide a draft amended complaint . . . .” Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267, 272-73 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to amend their Complaint, and already did so over three months after this litigation commenced. See id. at. 273 (“Delay may become undue when a movant has had previous opportunities to amend a complaint.”).3 Furthermore, Plaintiffs never proposed a draft Second Amended Complaint including additional equal protection allegations. Instead, Plaintiffs made the strategic decision to stand on their Complaint while Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were pending. See Begala v.
3 In one sentence on the last page of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs blanketly asked that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint as an alternative to the Court granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Plaintiffs’ Bf. in Opposition to Defendants’ Mots. to Dismiss at 81) (Docket No. 28).
6

PNC Bank, 214 F.3d 776, 784 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting approvingly of lower court’s conclusion that “[a]n open request for the Court to permit amendment to cure deficiencies, once the Court identifies those deficiencies, will not defeat a meritorious motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)”).
Once again, Plaintiffs have not stated any facts at any stage of this litigation, aside from legal conclusions, alleging intentional discrimination on the part of Defendants, nor have they alleged any facts showing that Defendants “selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” See Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). Given this delay and Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a draft Second Amended Complaint containing additional equal protection allegations, the Court’s decision to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV without giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Amended Complaint did not create a manifest injustice.4 C. Plaintiffs’ Request That the Court Permit Discovery With Respect to Counts II, III,
and IV, and Permit Amendment After Discovery is Completed. In its Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs also assert that the Court erred because, given that discovery has not been conducted, “the Court cannot be convinced that Plaintiffs will not be able to prove any set of facts which would entitle them to relief under these discrimination claims brought pursuant to [the] Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 5-6) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs then recommend as a form of relief that the Court dismiss Counts II, III, and IV without prejudice while permitting both discovery and
4
At oral argument, Plaintiffs’ then-counsel candidly stated that Plaintiffs “have a little bit of difficulty with” the equal protection allegations asserted in the Amended Complaint. Transcript of Jan. 18, 2007 Oral Argument at 45.
7

the amendment of the Amended Complaint after discovery is completed. Id. at 2. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, where a plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to plead
sufficient facts alleging intentional discrimination, a district court does not create a manifest injustice by dismissing the claims and declining costly discovery. The mere prospect of finding some evidence during discovery to support these equal protection claims is insufficient to satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden to plead facts which would entitle them to relief. See Miller v. Caldera, 138 F. Supp. 2d 10, 12 n.1 (D.D.C. 2001) (stating that a decision on whether to delay judgment on the merits of a motion to dismiss and order discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the district court judge); see also Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273 (stating that an opposing party may be unduly prejudiced if amendment would result in additional discovery).
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration has not shown that the Court’s September 21, 2007 Order erred factually or legally, nor has Plaintiffs’ Motion demonstrated that the Order created a manifest injustice.
An appropriate Order follows.
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants

: : : CIVIL ACTION : : : NO. 06-CV-1926 : : : :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September 2008, after consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Reconsideration (Docket No. 81) and Defendants’ responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED

that Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Golden THOMAS M. GOLDEN, J.

JUNIOR DOE v. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT et al, Docket No. 2:06-cv-01926 (E.D. Pa. May 05, 2006), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Civil Rights: Other
2:06-cv-01926
Closed

© 2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L1CSS7O2?fmt=pdf // PAGE 10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________

:

JUNIOR DOE, ET AL.

: CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: NO. 06-1926

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.:

:

Defendants :

________________________________:

ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

December 2, 2008

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently pending before me in this civil rights action is a

motion by Defendant F.H. for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).1 F.H. is a minor who allegedly sexually

assaulted the minor Plaintiffs inside Allentown Central

Elementary School (“CES”). The motion seeks to preclude

Plaintiffs’ counsel from disclosing the contents of F.H.’s

records received pursuant to a subpoena issued to the Lehigh

County Office of Child and Youth Services (“OCYS”), and

prohibiting discovery by any party into the subject matters

referred to in the OCYS records. The motion also seeks to bar

Plaintiffs from receiving material responsive to another subpoena

issued to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas for F.H.’s

1By Order of September 25, 2008, the Honorable Thomas M. Golden referred all discovery and pre-trial motions in this case to me.

juvenile court records. For the reasons that follow, I deny the motion for a protective order.
Preliminarily, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs obtained the OCYS documents that are the subject of this motion by circumventing the rules governing discovery in civil actions. At oral argument, it was conceded by all parties that, after the Complaint in this action was filed and served, and without conferring with or notifying any of the other attorneys representing the defendants as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), an associate attorney, then employed with the law firm that formerly represented the Plaintiffs, and who is now employed by Plaintiffs’ current law firm, issued a subpoena to the Lehigh County Juvenile Court requesting copies of F.H.’s court file.2 Rather than send the documents to the law firm, Common Pleas Court Judge William E. Ford sent the records to Judge Golden.3 Plaintiffs’ counsel thereafter sent Judge Golden a letter again seeking copies of the documents. Judge Golden appointed Marc S. Fisher, Esquire, as counsel for Defendant F.H., who was up to that time unrepresented, and sent Fisher a copy of the court documents so that he could litigate any interest F.H. had in
2Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), a party “may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f).”
3Following oral argument, Judge Golden forwarded the Juvenile Court documents to me for purposes of determining the pending motion.
-2-

keeping the documents from being disclosed. Several days later, the same associate issued a second subpoena, this time to OCYS, to get all records pertaining to F.H. from 1992 forward. That subpoena was also issued in violation of the meet and confer requirements contained in the discovery rules. OCYS responded to the subpoena by sending a redacted set of the documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Thus, Plaintiffs have in their possession redacted OCYS documents that have not been presented to the Allentown School District defendants or to the Lehigh Valley Hospital defendants. F.H. seeks to prevent further disclosure of the OCYS documents to anyone, direct Plaintiffs to disclose the identities of all persons with whom they have shared the documents, bar any party from conducting discovery or inquiring into the OCYS documents, and direct that all parties and counsel be prohibited from disclosing the identity of F.H. F.H. also seeks to preclude any party from accessing the Juvenile Court records which, though subpoenaed, Plaintiffs have not actually seen. II. LEGAL STANDARD.
I note, initially, that F.H. has made no claim of privilege under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5) or Fed. R. Evid. 501 regarding the OCYS documents or the Juvenile Court documents. Accordingly, any relief F.H. may receive must be under Rule 26(c). Under that Rule, a court “for good cause shown” may, in certain
-3-

circumstances, enter a protective order in the context of discovery. In Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F. 3d 772, 783-84 (3d Cir. 1994), the United States Court of Appeals set out the standard for my consideration of the pending motion. The Court explained that “it is well-established” that good cause must exist to obtain a protective order over discovery materials. Id. at 786. While the facts in Pansy involved a confidentiality order issued to protect a settlement agreement from public knowledge, the Court indicated that the good cause analysis of Rule 26(c) applied “whether an order of confidentiality is granted at the discovery stage or any other stage of litigation.” Id.
Under Pansy, there is good cause when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury, but broad allegations of harm are not sufficient to establish good cause. Id. The party seeking protection has the burden of showing that there is good cause for it. Id. at 786-87; Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 72 -73 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that, to make a showing of good cause, the party seeking confidentiality has the burden of showing the injury “with specificity”). I must determine whether there is good cause by balancing the interests of the public and the parties and must explain my reasoning behind my balancing conclusion. Pansy at 789.
-4-

Pansy discussed several balancing factors while noting that those factors were not exhaustive. Id. In particular, in Pansy and in a later decision, Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995), the Court listed seven factors that I should consider in determining whether to grant the protective order. Those factors are:
1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; 2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; 3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; 4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; 5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; 6) whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and 7) whether the case involves issues important to the public. Id. at 483 (citing Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787-91). III. THE OCYS DOCUMENTS. With regard to the OCYS documents, the only Pansy factor F.H. discusses is embarrassment. F.H.’s good cause argument
-5-

centers on his claims that the documents should be precluded from discovery because they record events that occurred outside the relevant time frame of the amended complaint, do not deal with the events alleged therein, would be embarrassing to F.H., and would result in the use of records that are purely private. He also argues that the disclosure by OCYS violated his confidentiality rights under the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6301, et seq. (“CPSL”).
In analyzing the embarrassment factor, I find, firstly, that F.H. does not state with specificity how he will be embarrassed if the protective order is not issued. He merely states he will suffer embarrassment in a conclusory fashion. Second, the parties have executed and Judge Golden has approved an “attorney eyes only” confidentiality Stipulation and Order governing discovery materials. Given the scope of the agreement, I find that the embarrassment factor is negligible during pre-trial discovery.4 Whether F.H. will suffer embarrassment if the documents are relevant and admissible at trial is not before me.
I also find that the CPSL is inapplicable to my analysis.
4The Stipulation and Order provides that only attorneys, experts, consultants and physicians may view discovery materials. It also provides that, if released, copies of the OCYS and Juvenile Court records at issue in this motion for protective order shall be copied by counsel for F.H. and distributed to the other attorneys with no further copies made except as may be necessary to provide to experts, consultants and physicians. Stipulation and Order ¶¶ 1-2.
-6-

Section 6339 provides that, reports made pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, report summaries of child abuse and written reports made pursuant to section 6313(b) and (c) (relating to reporting procedure) as well as any other information obtained, reports written or photographs or X-rays taken concerning alleged instances of child abuse in the possession of the department or a county agency shall be confidential.
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6339 (emphasis added). The incident involving F.H. and the Plaintiffs does not concern alleged instances of abuse of F.H.; they concern F.H.’s own alleged sexual abuse of the minor Plaintiffs. The other OCYS documents concern F.H.’s prior sexual behavior issues and his family’s prior contacts with, and supervision by, OCYS. To the extent that the document concern F.H.’s abuse of the Plaintiffs, I fail to see any basis for allowing F.H. to assert the protection of the statute. In addition, my review of the agency’s redaction of the documents leads me to conclude that their disclosure to the Defendants subject to the Stipulation and Order will not violate the CPSL. See V.B.T. v. Family Servs., 705 A.2d 1325, 1334 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (noting that the CPSL creates a privilege, albeit one that is “not absolute and disclosure of otherwise confidential information is therefore permitted where compelled by sufficiently weighty interests”).
In analyzing the other Pansy factors, hampered as my analysis is by the fact that F.H. does not discuss them, I can discern from my review of the material submitted by the parties
-7-

nothing to tip the balance in favor of granting the protective order. F.H. has articulated no specific privacy interest in the documents, other than the fact that they record his antisocial conduct at a time while he is a juvenile and his family’s supervision by the agency. They are already highly redacted to protect the family’s privacy. There is no suggestion in the material that they could be used for an improper purpose. Finally, since the Plaintiffs already have the documents, the sharing of the information among the other litigants will promote fairness and efficiency.
I find that F.H.’s argument that the records involve events that occurred outside the relevant time frame of the amended complaint, and do not deal with the events alleged therein, is not a “good cause” argument. It is an admissibility argument. At the discovery phase, material is discoverable if it would merely lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; it does not itself have to constitute admissible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) (allowing admission of similar acts in civil cases concerning sexual assault or child molestation). IV. THE COURT DOCUMENTS.
At oral argument, Attorney Fisher raised no objection to the Plaintiffs and other Defendants having access to several documents contained in the Court of Common Pleas file.
-8-

Accordingly, the motion for a protective order will be denied as
moot as to those documents listed in ¶ 24 b, g, h, I, and j of
F.H.’s motion, i.e, the Juvenile Petition/Witness List (5 pages);
the Index of Witnesses in Juvenile Proceeding (9 pages);
Scheduling Orders (4 pages); Adjudication Order of 6/30/2004 (2
pages); and the Disposition Order of 9/17/2004 (2 pages).
Release of the balance of the documents, I find, is
controlled by the provisions of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6307,
which provides in pertinent part:
(a) General rule.– All files and records of the court in a proceeding under this chapter are open to inspection only by:
(1) The judges, officers and professional staff of the court. (2) The parties to the proceeding and their counsel and representatives . . .
. . . (7) With leave of court, any other person or agency or institution having a legitimate interest in the proceedings or in the work of the unified judicial system. (b) Public availability.-(1) The contents of court records and files concerning a child shall not be disclosed to the public unless any of the following apply:
(i) The child has been adjudicated delinquent by a court as a result of an act or acts committed:
. . . (B) when the child was 12 or 13 years of age and the conduct would have constituted one or more of the following offenses if committed by an adult:
. . . (V) Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
-9-

. . . (VII) Rape. (2) If the conduct of the child meets the requirements for disclosure as set forth in paragraph (1), then the court shall disclose the name, age and address of the child, the offenses charged and the disposition of the case. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6307. F.H. was twelve years old at the time of the incidents involving the Plaintiffs and has been adjudicated delinquent of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Accordingly, under the provisions of subsection (b)(1)(i)(B), F.H.’s name, age and address may be disclosed to the public. To receive any other information, Plaintiffs must qualify under subsection (a)(7) as persons having a legitimate interest in the juvenile proceeding. I find that they are entitled to the information. The Pennsylvania Courts have held that “[t]here is a compelling interest in protecting minor children’s privacy rights and the protection of a minor child’s privacy is a key aspect of the Juvenile Act.” In re M.B., 869 A.2d 542, 546 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). The Courts have held that “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act demonstrates our legislature’s compelling interest in safeguarding children involved in juvenile proceedings.” Id. (quoting In re M.B., 819 A.2d 59, 65 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). More specifically, the Pennsylvania Courts have determined that plaintiffs in a civil suit unrelated to the actions of the
-10-

juvenile that precipitated the delinquency proceeding do not have a legitimate interest in the records protected by § 6307(a). See V.B.T., 705 A.2d at 1331 (holding that “Analysis of the cited language in the context of the statutory section as a whole persuades us that the term, ‘person with a legitimate interest in the proceedings’ in the cited subsection refers only to a person who has a direct involvement with the juvenile court proceedings or the events in question. . . . The statutory exception to confidentiality thus does not extend to an unrelated civil plaintiff seeking information about the proceedings for purposes of prosecuting a personal injury lawsuit based on a separate incident involving the foster child.”).
Of course, unlike the plaintiff in V.B.T., the Plaintiffs here have sued based on the same incident that led to the delinquency proceeding. Accordingly, I find that the holding of V.B.T. is distinguishable and the decision does not impact the application of subsection (a)(7), which specifically permits public disclosure under these circumstances. Protection of F.H.’s privacy during discovery is adequately governed by the Stipulation and Order. V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, F.H.’s motion for a protective order is denied. In the order that follows, I direct Attorney Fisher to provide a copy of the Juvenile Court records and OCYS documents to the
-11-

other parties that do not already have them under the terms and protections of the Stipulation and Order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________

:

JUNIOR DOE, ET AL.

: CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: NO. 06-1926

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.:

:

Defendants :

________________________________:

ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2008, upon consideration

of Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket Entry #94),

and all Responses thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion

is DENIED.

Counsel for F.H. is directed to provide copies of the OCYS

and Juvenile Court documents to all other parties that do not

currently have them under the terms set forth in the Stipulation

and Order dated April 14, 2008.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Arnold C. Rapoport
ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT, United States Magistrate Judge

-13-

JUNIOR DOE v. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT et al, Docket No. 2:06-cv-01926 (E.D. Pa. May 05, 2006), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Civil Rights: Other
2:06-cv-01926
Closed

© 2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6L2ORPGO2?fmt=pdf // PAGE 14

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al.

:

:

:

v.

:

:

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1926

GOLDEN, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER SEPTEMBER 21, 2007

Plaintiffs, three students at Allentown’s Central Elementary School (“CES”) and their parents and guardians, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, as well as Pennsylvania law, alleging violations of their rights to bodily integrity and equal protection of the law, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress by the Allentown School District (“ADS”) and Lehigh Valley Hospital (“LVH”) through the actions of their employees. The Complaint also named seventeen ASD employees1 in their official and individual capacities, and two employees2 of LVH in their individual capacities, which provided healthcare services to CES students and purportedly oversaw healthcare for the district overall.

1
The ASD individual defendants are: Eva W. Haddon, Principal; Bradley Carter, Assistant Principal; Karen S. Angello, Superintendent; Evelyn W. Rossi, Director of Human Resources; Karen J. Boardman, Executive Director of Elementary Education; Diane M. Holben, Director of Research, Planning and Accountability; Rita D. Perez, Director of Professional and Staff Development; Ralph A. Daubert, Executive Director of Community and Student Services; Ralph S. Todd, Executive Director of Instructional Support Services; Deborah Hartman, Director of Special Education; Lourdes Sanchez, School Psychologist; Gerald Brown, Teacher; Amy Enright, Teacher; Lori Friebolin, Teacher; Kim Ceccatti, Guidance Counselor; Catherine Bucks, Teacher; and Jenna Heiland, School Nurse.
2
The LVH individual defendants are: Peg Perry, School Nurse; and Kathleen E. Coughlin, Social Worker.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 2 of 22
Before the Court are five motions, from different defendants, to dismiss plaintiffs’ ten-count Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court denies all five motions to dismiss as to Count 1, brought under the Due Process Clause. It grants all five motions to dismiss as to Counts 2, 3, and 4, brought under the Equal Protection Clause. It grants the motions on the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 8) as to the Allentown School District, but denies the motion as to Lehigh Valley Hospital. Finally, it grants the motions to dismiss the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 7) as to all defendants who are employees of the Allentown School District or Lehigh Valley Hospital.
STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows courts to screen out cases “where a complaint states a claim based upon a wrong for which there is clearly no remedy, or a claim which the plaintiff is without right or power to assert and for which no relief could possibly be granted.” Port Auth. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir. 1999). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals instructs that “the complaint will withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) attack if the material facts as alleged, in addition to inferences drawn from those allegations, provide a basis for recovery.” Menkowitz v. Pottstown Mem’l Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113, 124-25 (3d Cir. 1998). In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court is required to accept all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. Hishon, 467 U.S. at 73. Thus, a court should grant a motion to dismiss only when it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Johnsrud v. Carter, 620 F.2d 29, 33 (3d Cir. 1980). In resolving a motion to dismiss, the Court must primarily consider the allegations contained in the Complaint, although matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to the Complaint may also be considered. Pension Benefit
2

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 3 of 22
Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). FACTS
The facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint describe a series of sexual assaults on the students of CES. Defendant F.H., a twelve-year old Caucasian boy, transferred to CES at the beginning of the 2003 school year. (Amd. Compl. at ¶ 39). Between December 2003 and March 2004, in four separate episodes, F.H. sexually assaulted four first-grade minority boys in bathroom stalls at CES. (Id. at ¶¶ 40, 49, 51, 54). Three of those boys and their parents and guardians are plaintiffs in this action.
Teachers, administrators, and healthcare providers at CES were informed of events as each of these assaults took place. A second-grade student witnessed the first assault and alerted a teacher, who immediately questioned F.H. and his victim. (Id. at ¶ 40). F.H. made what plaintiffs characterize as “admissions” about the attack, and the victim was taken to the school’s main office to report the episode. (Id.) The Complaint alleges that defendants Haddon, Carter, Ceccatti, Coughlin, Sanchez, Heiland and/or Perry were informed about the incident. (Id.) The ASD and LVH employees did not have F.H. investigated or removed from the school, or take other action. (Id. at ¶ 47).
F.H. subsequently assaulted a second victim; the child fled the bathroom with his pants still lowered, and a teacher discovered him. (Id. at ¶ 49). Again, the child was taken to the school’s office; again, seven individual defendants heard a report of the assault but did not take action beyond an internal investigation. (Id. at ¶ 50).
F.H. then committed a third assault; the victim told his mother, who immediately went to CES to speak with the assistant principal, defendant Carter. (Id. at ¶ 51). Carter assured her that the
3

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 4 of 22
incident would be handled appropriately; the next day, the assistant principal reported the assault to other CES staff, and assured the victim’s mother that the case had been referred to the police and that F.H. would be removed from CES. (Id. at ¶¶ 51, 52, 53). In fact, no report to the police was made and F.H. was not removed from the school. (Id. at ¶ 53).
The final assault took place on March 16, 2004, when F.H. attacked plaintiff Junior Doe in the lower-level bathroom at CES. (Id. at ¶ 55). Junior Doe alerted his teacher, defendant Bucks, who neglected to report the episode to other school officials. When class was dismissed, Junior Doe told his father, who had come to CES to pick him up, about the attack. (Id. at ¶ 57). It was plaintiff’s father, John Doe, who ultimately called the police after further inaction by school officials. (Id. at ¶ 58). Following a police investigation, defendant F.H. was arrested and adjudicated delinquent. (Id. at ¶ 59).
These allegations are the basis for ten counts of constitutional and state tort violations, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, its Equal Protection Clause, the Pennsylvania Constitution, federal and state statutes and common law.3
.
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CLAIM4 The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the people from the arbitrary
3 The final two counts are asserted against defendant F.H. for assault and battery and false imprisonment. F.H. is also named as a defendant in the counts for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. F.H. does not have a motion before the Court.
4
The Complaint specifically alleges that the defendants denied the plaintiffs of their right to bodily integrity under both the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The analysis is the same under both constitutions, and thus the Court refers only to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause. Pa. Game Comm’n v. Marich, 666 A.2d 253, 255 n.6 (Pa. 1995).
4

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 5 of 22
deprivation of “life, liberty, and property, without due process of law” by state governments. Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1993). The United States Supreme Court recognizes the Due Process Clause as a limitation on government power. Id. But although the Due Process Clause sets limits on what a state may do to the people, it sets no requirements as to what a state must do for the people, even when life, liberty, and property are at stake. Id. The extent and nature of a state’s aid to its population is a matter of public policy determined through the democratic process and safeguarded by state legislatures, not a matter of individual rights determined through the Constitution and safeguarded by federal courts. Id. It is well-settled law that, under the Constitution alone, a state has no duty to protect its people from violence at the hands of private actors. Id. at 197; Bright v. Westmoreland County, 443 F.3d 276, 284 (3d Cir. 2006).
At the same time, however, courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause as keeping the people safe from state-created danger. That is, although a state is not constitutionally required to provide its population with protection from third parties, a state may not, without risking liability, take affirmative action that renders its citizens more vulnerable to harm than they would have been had the state not acted at all. DeShaney, supra at 201. This is called the state-created danger theory of liability. In this judicial circuit, to bring a claim under the state-created danger theory, a plaintiff must establish the following elements:
(1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) a state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; (3) a relationship between the state and the plaintiff existed such that “the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defendant’s acts,” or a “member of a discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state’s actions,” as opposed to a member of the public in general; and (4) a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a way that created a danger
5

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 6 of 22
to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than had the state not acted at all. Ye v. United States, 484 F.3d 634 ,638 (3d Cir. 2007); Bright, 443 F.3d at 281. The motions to dismiss center primarily5 on the fourth factor in the Bright test. The three necessary elements to satisfy the fourth element of a state-created danger claim are that: (1) a state actor exercised his or her authority, (2) the state actor took an affirmative action, and (3) this act created a danger to the citizen or rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than if the state had not acted at all. Ye, 484 F.3d at 639 (3d Cir. 2007). The crucial question in dispute is whether any of the state actors named as defendants in this case took an affirmative action–whether a state actor affirmatively used authority to render Junior Doe and the other minor-plaintiffs more vulnerable than they would have been had the state not acted at all. Plaintiffs contend the defendants took the following affirmative acts which rendered plaintiffs more vulnerable than they would have been if the state had not acted at all: • concealed violent sexual assaults for at least four months; • countenanced, veiled, and thereby fostered violence at CES; • conspired to cover up the assaults; • trivialized the assaults; • veiled the assaults and failed to apprise the police, or any other relevant agency, of them; • failed to summon emergency medical treatment for the victims;
5
None of the defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to establish the first and third factors. The ASD does argue that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the second factor because its employees did not act in a manner that “shocks the conscience.” The Court finds guidance in a similar case involving a school’s failure to address ongoing violence against its students, in which a sister court held that lackadaisical school officials shocked the conscience. Gremo v. Karlin, 363 F. Supp. 2d 771, 789 (E.D. Pa. 2005). Based on this authority and taking the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have established the second factor.
6

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 7 of 22
• failed to remove F.H., or to isolate him from other students; • permitted F.H. to remain on school grounds; • failed to memorialize or document the assaults; • failed to document the injuries to the students; • disregarded warnings and evidence of F.H.’s violent behavior; • covered up repeated acts of violence within certain problematic Allentown schools, including
CES; • failed to follow the disciplinary protocol at CES, pursuant to the Allentown School District
Official Code of Conduct; • failed to train and supervise its administrators and employees adequately; • failed to address security issues by failing to:
• address school safety in unmonitored areas, especially common areas, bathrooms, and hallways;
• enhance school security personnel; • enforce school codes of conduct and law enforcement reporting protocols; • adequately train school officials; • implement school safety and violence prevention curricula; • conduct adequate security planning or purchase security technology; • provide specialized staff and student training programs; • report or notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of the assaults; • discipline, isolate, or remove F.H. from the school; and • protect students from known or suspected violence.
7

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 8 of 22
Amended Complaint at ¶ 69. Case law establishes that, because the Due Process Clause does not require government aid
or action, even “indefensible passivity” by government officials will not create a constitutional violation. D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1376 (3d Cir. 1992). As the Third Circuit has stated, “It is misuse of state authority, rather than failure to use it, that can violate the Due Process Clause.” Bright, 443 F.3d at 282.
Unfortunately, precedent does not lack for examples of children in peril and the government officials who let them down. A review of the cases shows, however, that courts have considered, and rejected, allegations similar to many of those in plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for purposes of the state-created danger theory. For example, in a recent case, the Third Circuit considered the constitutional liability of police and county officials who failed to prevent the murder of a young girl, Annette Bright. Id. at 278. Annette’s killer, Charles Koschalk, had been convicted of corrupting the morals of a minor because of his relationship with Annette’s sister. Id. Koschalk maintained his relationship with Annette’s sister even after his guilty plea for corrupting the morals of a minor; Koschalk and Annette’s sister were spotted in public by a probation officer, who recorded the violation. Id. A hearing was scheduled on the violation, but not until ten weeks after the report. Id. at 279. In June 2001, Annette’s father called local police to demand that they arrest Koschalk, who was scheduled to remain free until late August. Id. The officers assured Annette’s father that they would take action, but did not arrest or otherwise restrain Koschalk. Id. Enraged by the family’s efforts to keep him away from their older daughter, Koschalk retaliated by killing Annette. Id.
After consideration of Supreme Court precedent and the passivity of the police and public officials involved in the case, the Third Circuit held that a state’s failure to detain a violent actor does
8

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 9 of 22
not constitute an affirmative act for purposes of the state-created danger theory, even when state officials give false assurances that they will protect a family. Id. at 283-84. The Third Circuit also rejected the idea that, simply by allowing violent private actors to persist in their illegal or immoral behavior, a municipal or state agency emboldens and encourages the violence. Id. at 285.
In a case similar to the case sub judice, the Third Circuit held that a school district’s failure to train teachers to respond to assaults, or to investigate and stop assaults, are not affirmative actions that can give rise to Due Process liability. D.R., 922 F.2d at 1375-76. Students at Middle Bucks Vocational School brought constitutional and state law actions against school officials who failed to protect them from sexual assaults from their classmates. Id. at 1366. The assaults occurred in a unisex bathroom adjacent to a classroom staffed by a student teacher. Id. The plaintiffs did not inform their teacher that the assaults were occurring, but claimed that she should have been present in the classroom and aware of the danger. Id. While acknowledging the “indefensible passivity,” id. at 1376, of school officials who failed to stop the “pandemonium,” id. at 1374, the Third Circuit concluded that the officials were not liable because they had not created the danger to students. Id.
Third Circuit precedent also suggests, however, that a school district’s efforts to suppress public knowledge of sexual assaults and to dissuade students from reporting abuse may be a basis for liability distinct from liability for the assaults themselves. Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 724-25 (3d Cir. 1989). In Stoneking, a female student sued her school district and its administrators after experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of a teacher. Id. at 722. The student did not assert that the district might be liable because it was somehow responsible for the violent acts of the teacher. Id. at 724. Instead, her theory of liability was premised on the school administrators’ aggressive efforts to dissuade victims from coming forward and to conceal past abuses from higher
9

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 10 of 22
officials. Id. at 725. Stoneking is different from the instant case because the acts of violence were committed by
a state employee, rather than a third party. The source of liability for the school officials in Stoneking, however, was not the violence, but rather their attempt to conceal the violence. The Third Circuit explicitly stated that:
[i]t is immaterial for this purpose whether [the teacher’s] sexual abuse is viewed as attributable to the state...defendants are liable for their own actions in adopting and maintaining a practice, custom, or policy of reckless indifference to instances of known or suspected sexual abuse of students by teachers, in concealing complaints of abuse, and in discouraging students’ complaints about such conduct. Id. at 724-25. Upon review of the Amended Complaint, this Court observes that the allegations concerning concealment of the assaults might result in liability for the defendants. Unlike the defendants’ passive failures, an active and concerted effort by defendants to conceal crimes against the victims at CES could constitute an affirmative act for purposes of the state-created danger theory. In addition, the state may be liable if its actions prevent a “private source of protection” from reaching a plaintiff. Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1209-10 (3d Cir. 1996). In Kneipp, police separated a husband and wife walking home from a Bucks County bar. Id. at 1201. After allowing the husband to go home to look after his children, police left the wife, who was visibly intoxicated, to walk home alone. Id. at 1201-02. Profoundly impaired, the woman was unable to make her way home and fell to the bottom of an embankment; through exposure to the elements, she became brain damaged. Id. at 1203. The Third Circuit concluded that the police could be liable for plaintiff’s injuries because, in separating her from her husband, they actively prevented him from coming to her rescue. Id. at 1210. Similarly, if the school and hospital employees took affirmative steps to conceal the assaults and to stop colleagues coming forward to serve as a “private source of rescue”
10

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 11 of 22
for Junior Doe, they may be held liable under Kneipp. In denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court does not determine that the
defendants did cover up the abuse at CES, or that their actions prevented help from reaching Junior Doe. The Court only determines that these actions may constitute affirmative acts under Third Circuit precedent. Before the factual record is developed, however, the Court must only decide if there are facts that the plaintiff could prove to establish liability. Thus, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to Count 1 of the Complaint. With the above-referenced precedents in mind, however, as this case proceeds through discovery, plaintiffs’ counsel must focus on discovering what actions the defendants took, rather than on what actions they failed to take, if they intend their claims in Count 1 to survive a motion for summary judgment.
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CLAIMS The plaintiffs bring three claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, averring that the school and hospital officials discriminated against them because of their race, socioeconomic class, and age. Because the plaintiffs do not allege facts, beyond mere legal conclusions, to suggest that the government intentionally classified them for differential treatment, these counts are dismissed. Because no classification has been alleged in the pleadings, the Court need not conduct a rational basis or strict scrutiny review of the policy. Adopted in the shadow of the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals from government efforts to intentionally classify and designate disparate groups for disparate treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 368 (1886). To assert a valid equal protection claim, the plaintiff must allege intentional or purposeful discrimination by the defendant. See Personnel Adm’r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979). A policy’s unequal and deleterious impact on a class
11

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 12 of 22
of people is not enough, alone, to show purposeful discrimination.6 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 248 (1976).
In the instant matter, the plaintiffs claim that defendants denied them protective services and policies that were made available to AES students who were white, wealthier and older than they are. The plaintiffs do not allege that these disparities were the product of intentional discrimination. Although these disparities may be the product of bad policy or basic unfairness, the Equal Protection Clause does not provide a remedy for disparate impact alone, Washington, 426 U.S. at 248. Accordingly, the Equal Protection counts of plaintiffs’ Complaint are dismissed.
THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS The Constitution describes fundamental rights, but federal statuTes provide the framework through which the people can defend their rights in court. The various statutes that make civil rights suits possible have their own requirements for application, which the defendants argue plaintiffs have not met. The plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection claims against all defendants are brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. The Court agrees that plaintiffs cannot proceed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, or 1986. The
6
The plaintiffs assert that a defendant can also be liable for discrimination based on “deliberate indifference” to the treatment of a class of people, which can be shown from a defendant’s actions or inactions in light of known circumstances. To support this proposition, they cite Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 646 (1999), which held that Title IX provided a private cause of action against a school district that was deliberately indifferent to the ongoing sexual harassment of elementary school girls, thereby denying female students full access to education. There is no authority from this judicial circuit that uses Davis to justify a deliberate indifference standard in racial discrimination cases. Because Davis itself is a Title IX case, the Court declines to apply its logic to a matter that does not involve Title IX.
12

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 13 of 22
Court holds that the plaintiffs can proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 Sections 1985, 1986 and 1981
To bring a claim under § 1985, a plaintiff must allege that two or more people acted, motivated by a racial class-based animus, to deprive the plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws. O’Hare v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14919, at *19 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 1999) (§ 1985 claim dismissed when the plaintiffs did not assert facts that could show that a student was assaulted due to her membership in a class). A § 1985 claim cannot survive without an equal protection violation, and cannot support a due process violation. Welsh v. Male, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20267, at *15 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2007). The text of the statute, which makes no reference to due process claims, supports this view. Thus, because plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim is dismissed, their claim cannot proceed under § 1985.
Claims brought under § 1986 depend on a valid cause of action under § 1985. Welsh, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20267, at *17. Because plaintiffs’ claims cannot proceed under § 1985, their claims cannot proceed under § 1986, either.
The plaintiffs also periodically cite to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in their Amended Complaint. The defendants rightly point out that § 1981 serves to redeem contract and property rights, which are not at issue in this case. Brown v. Philip Morris, 250 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 2001). Thus, the plaintiffs claims cannot proceed under § 1981.
7
42 U.S.C. § 1988, to which plaintiffs’ refer in their complaint, does not provide an independent cause of action. Moor v. County of Almeda, 411 U.S. 693, 702-03 (1973). The section does, however, allow prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights suits to recover attorneys’ fees. Thus, although § 1988 is not a cause of action for plaintiffs’ claims, it is still relevant to this case.
13

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 14 of 22
Section 1983 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, local government entities may be held liable only for employee
actions that are the product of a policy or custom of the local government. A custom or policy need not be formally adopted to provoke liability, provided that “the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law.” A.M. v. Luzerne County Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572, 580 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Bd. of the County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). The plaintiffs claim that ASD and LVH developed a policy of concealing assaults on students during the four month period when the four separate attacks against Junior Doe and his classmates unfolded. The defendants dispute this assertion, and LVH further argues that it has no policy-making role within the Allentown schools.
The defendants’ arguments cannot prevail at this stage in litigation, however, because the existence of a widespread custom or policy, and a defendant’s role in developing that policy, are factsensitive inquiries that cannot be settled through a motion to dismiss. Thus, while the Court acknowledges the heavy evidentiary burden that the plaintiffs will have to meet, particularly with regard to LVH, the Court cannot dismiss the claim.
LVH also argues that its employees did not act “under color of state law,” as required by the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. LVH is correct in noting that it is not a state agency, and that its status as a provider of services to the public, alone, is not sufficient to make it an actor under color of state law. Black v. Indiana Area Sch. Dist., 985 F.2d 707, 711 (3d Cir. 1993) (school bus driver employed by private contractor did not act under color of state law when he assaulted students). The Third Circuit has noted, however, that there are two broadly-defined lines of “state action” cases that describe when a private party may be held accountable for a constitutional tort as a state actor. As
14

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 15 of 22
the court stated: the first category involves an activity that is significantly encouraged by the state or in which the state acts as a joint participant...The second category of cases involves an actor that is controlled by the state, performs a function delegated by the state, or is entwined with government policies or management.
Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337, 340 (3d Cir. 2005). At this stage of the case, the record does not permit the “necessarily fact bound inquiry” into whether LVH and its employees acted under color of state law according to any of the definitions of state action.8 McKessport Hospital v. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Med. Ed., 24 F.3d 519, 523 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Bryan v. Erie County Office of Children & Youth, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70856, at * 35 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2006). Thus, the Court will not dismiss plaintiffs’ claims as deficient under § 1983. Notice under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)
The ASD argues that plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because they did not provide the notice required under section 5522. Generally, this statute mandates that a potential plaintiff intending to sue a state agency file a statement with the Attorney General’s Office within six months of an actionable injury. Id. If a plaintiff does not provide notice within six months, the claim is barred. Id. The rule provides an exception, however, when the state agency has actual or constructive notice of the incident giving rise to the injury. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5552(a)(3)(iii). A significant number of ASD employees were aware of the assaults by F.H., at least by the time Junior Doe’s father contacted the police in March 2004. Notably, a number of ASD employees participated
8 Defendant LVH discusses Black, which is a leading case from the Third Circuit on the interplay between private and state entities, at some length. Black itself relies on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982). Both cases concern private contractors working in service to a school district. Although both cases conclude that the private entity did not act under color of state law, both also reached the
summary judgment phase of litigation. Thus, the courts made their determinations concerning § 1983 liability after
examining a developed record.
15

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 16 of 22
in F.H.’s adjudication proceedings. Thus, the Court concludes that the ASD had actual notice of the incidents that injured Junior Doe and his classmates, and the exception to the section 5522 notice requirement applies.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The ASD employees named in their individual capacities have asserted that they have qualified immunity from damages for the alleged constitutional torts.9 Qualified immunity protects government officials from claims for damages for constitutional rights unless the “right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.” Gremo, 363 F. Supp. 2d at 791. The Third Circuit has stated that “defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal standard.” Stoneking, 882 F.2d at 725. The first question in determining whether the individual ASD defendants should receive the protection of qualified immunity is whether they violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights–in this case, whether their actions constituted a violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause via the state-created danger exception. See Saucier v. Katz, 553 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). As discussed, supra, the Court has decided to grant Plaintiffs a period of discovery on the issue of whether Plaintiffs can establish the fourth element of a state-created danger claim, i.e., whether any of the ASD defendants committed an affirmative act which rendered the Plaintiffs more vulnerable to danger than if the State had not acted at all. Until that discovery is completed, the Court is unable to determine whether any of the individual ASD defendants actions constituted a violation of the
9 The plaintiffs also name the defendants in their official capacities. The defendants note correctly that these counts “merge” with the counts against the school district, which is the real party in interest. Irene B. v. Phila. Acad. Charter Sch., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3020, at *30-32 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2003). Thus, the Court dismisses the ASD employees named in their official capacities from the suit. Id.
16

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 17 of 22
substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the Court will deny the individual ASD defendants’ claim to qualified immunity at this time with leave to renew in the form of a motion for summary judgment after discovery is completed.
ISSUES OF STATE LAW The plaintiffs’ Complaint includes two counts of state torts: negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Moreover, in a somewhat confusing section of the pleadings,10 the plaintiffs have argued that their injuries stem from the individual defendants’ willful misconduct and negligent care, custody, and control of property. These two assertions are significant because, if the Court found that they were true, the ASD and its employees would be ineligible for immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The Court will first address whether the exceptions to immunity apply, and then consider the substance of the tort counts. Although plaintiffs may sometimes recover from municipalities for the negligent acts of their employees, these negligent acts must fit within a group of eight exceptions listed under section 8542 of the PSTCA. The plaintiffs argue that the so-called “real estate exception” applies in this case, because their injuries are the result of defendants’ care, custody, and control of property. The school district, however, correctly points out that the real estate exception is available for injuries caused by defects in property, not by the behavior of individuals on the property. Scott v. Willis, 543 A.2d 165, 168 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988) (citing Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 523 A.2d 1118, 1124 (Pa. 1987)). Thus, this exception is irrelevant in a case based on assault. The plaintiffs also argue that the individual defendants’ behavior falls within the “willful
10 The plaintiffs assert willful misconduct and negligent care, custody, and control of property as counts of their Complaint. In fact, these allegations are not causes of action, but exceptions to Pennsylvania immunity law.
17

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 18 of 22
misconduct” exception to the PSTCA, which abrogates immunity when public employees cause an injury through a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8550. The Third Circuit recently endorsed a definition of willful misconduct that requires “conduct whereby the actor desired to bring about the result that followed or at least was aware that it was substantially certain to follow, so that such desire can be implied.” Bright, 443 F.3d at 287 (quoting Robbins v. Cumberland County Children & Youth Services, 802 A.2d 1239, 1253-54 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002)). The Third Circuit made clear that willful misconduct is beyond recklessness, deliberate indifference, and the knowing disregard of risks; instead, willful misconduct requires “specific intent.” Id. In the instant case, the plaintiffs do not suggest that the defendants, however indifferent they may have been to the risks posed by F.H., specifically intended for the children of CES to be endangered and assaulted. Therefore, the conduct of the ASD defendants is not willful misconduct, and does not eliminate their immunity under the PSTCA.
Turning to the specific tort counts, the Court dismisses the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress as to the ASD because it is shielded from liability by the PSTCA. See June v. Spano, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25681, at *21 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2005). LVH did not address this tort substantively in its moving papers, and thus the claim survives as to it.11
The Court also dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the ASD employee defendants and the LVH employee defendants. The parameters of this tort have never been defined by the Pennsylvania legislature; thus, courts look to previous cases and to scholarship to determine whether intentional infliction of emotional distress occurred in a specific
11
LVH argued that the Court should dismiss the federal claims, and then decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d. 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). Because the Court has not dismissed all federal claims, the supplemental jurisdiction argument is moot.
18

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 19 of 22
case. Generally, “one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.” Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745, 754 (Pa. 1998) (quoting the Restatement (Second) of Torts). The case law from this state and others indicates that, even taking the facts as alleged by the plaintiff as true, the behavior of the defendants does not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In cases involving both sexual assault or harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is generally only the perpetrator who is considered liable for an intentional infliction claim. Compare Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1487 (3d Cir. 1990) (the failure to ameliorate a hostile environment in the workplace was insufficiently outrageous to establish liability) and Hackney v. Woodring, 622 A.2d 286, 289 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (persistent sexual advances and touching from an employer could establish liability). In a case analogous to this one, the court concluded that a diocese accused of covering up a priest’s abusive past was not liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress because there was no evidence that it intended to cause harm to the ultimate victims of the crime. See Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 249 (Mo. 1997). These results are not surprising, because the tort is designed to provide compensation only for outrageous acts done for the purpose of causing emotional distress. In the context of sexual assault, typically the assailant alone intends to cause harm. Here, it was F.H. who sought to harm his classmates. The plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants, even if they covered up the assaults, did so with the intention that more children would be injured. Therefore, an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress will not lie.
An appropriate Order follows.
19

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 20 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al.

:

:

:

v.

:

:

:

ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-cv-01926

O R D E R AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2007, upon consideration of the outstanding motions

to dismiss and after having heard oral argument on the motions, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion of the Defendant Lehigh Valley Hospital to Dismiss [Doc. #17] is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

2. The motion of the Defendant Allentown School District to Dismiss pursuant to

12(b)(6) [Doc. #18] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:

3. The motion of the Defendant Peg Perry to Dismiss [Doc. #19] is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

4. The motion of the Defendant Kathleen E. Coughlin to Dismiss [Doc. #20] is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

5. The motion of the Defendant Peg Perry to Dismiss [Doc. #34] is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

The motions are DENIED as to Count One of the Amended Complaint (Due Process Clause)

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 21 of 22
with leave to renew in the form of a motion for summary judgment after discovery is completed. The motions are GRANTED as to Counts II, III, and IV (Equal Protection Clause) of the
Amended Complaint. Counts II, III, and IV of the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All claims against all defendants brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985 and 1986 are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Counts V and VI of the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as neither
count sets forth a theory of recovery, but rather allege exceptions to Pennsylvania immunity law which the Court has reviewed and found to be inapplicable.
The motions are GRANTED as to Count VII of the Amended Complaint (intentional infliction of emotional distress) as to all Defendants who are employees of the Allentown School District or Lehigh Valley Hospital. All claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress contained in Count VII of the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all Defendants who are employees of the Allentown School District or Lehigh Valley Hospital.
The motions are GRANTED as to Count VIII of the Amended Complaint (negligent infliction of emotional distress) as to the Allentown School District only. All claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Count VIII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against only the Defendant Allentown School District.
All claims against the individual defendant from the Allentown School District in their official capacities are DISMISSED. Any defendant who is a state official sued in his or her individual capacity may reassert a qualified immunity defense in the form of a motion for summary judgment after discovery is completed on Count One as detailed in the Opinion.
2

Case 2:06-cv-01926-TMG Document 79 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 22 of 22 The LVH defendants may also renew their claim that they did not act under of color of state
law in a motion for summary judgment after discovery is completed. BY THE COURT: /s/ THOMAS M. GOLDEN THOMAS M. GOLDEN, J.
3

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants

: : : CIVIL ACTION : : : NO. 06-cv-1926 : : : :

GOLDEN, J.

FEBRUARY 26, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs, three students at Allentown’s Central Elementary School (“CES”), brought this

action against Allentown School District (“ASD” or “School District”) and Lehigh Valley

Hospital (“LVH”) asserting various federal and state law claims, including one count alleging

violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to bodily integrity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Amended Complaint also names seventeen ASD employees (“ASD Individual Defendants”) and

two employees of LVH, nurse Margaret Perry (“Perry”) and social worker Kathleen E. Coughlin

(“Coughlin”), who provided healthcare services to CES students and allegedly oversaw healthcare for ASD (collectively, “LVH Individual Defendants”).1 The claims in the Amended

Complaint arise out of a series of alleged sexual assaults perpetrated by Defendant F.H.—a

twelve-year old boy who transferred to CES at the beginning of the 2003 school year—against

1 In an Order issued on September 21, 2007 (Doc. No. 79), the Court dismissed several counts in the Amended Complaint, including Plaintiffs’ claims relating to (a) equal protection, (b) willful misconduct constituting intentional, discriminatory failure to provide adequate protective services, (c) negligent care, custody, or control of real property, (d) intentional infliction of emotional distress (as to the ASD Individual Defendants and the LVH Individual Defendants), and (e) negligent infliction of emotional distress (as to ASD). The Court also dismissed all claims against the ASD Individual Defendants in their official capacities. See Doe v. Allentown Sch. Dist., No. 061926, 2007 WL 2814587 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2007) (Doc. No. 79).

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 2 of 20
four first-grade boys in bathroom stalls at CES. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39, 40, 49, 51, 54).2 The
assaults took place between December 2003 and March 2004. (Id. at ¶ 40). Three of the alleged
victims, by and through their parents and guardians, filed the Amended Complaint in this action.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (Doc. No. 93). In lieu of a reply brief in
response to Defendants’ briefs opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion, Plaintiffs filed a draft Second
Amended Complaint containing the proposed counts and supporting factual allegations. (Doc.
No. 104). Plaintiffs have requested the inclusion of the following additional counts: (a) one
sexual discrimination and harassment count against ASD, the ASD Individual Defendants, and
LVH pursuant to Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Proposed Second Am. Compl., Count II); (b)
separate professional negligence counts against Defendants Perry, Coughlin, and LVH (Proposed
Second Am. Compl., Counts III, IV, and V);3 (c) one general negligence count against F.H.
2
For a more detailed description of the facts alleged in this case, see Doe, 2007 WL 2814587, at *1-2 (Doc. No. 79).
3
In their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, the LVH Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ request to include these professional negligence counts should be denied because, “[b]y Court Order, all claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress have been dismissed with prejudice” against the LVH Individual Defendants and “Plaintiffs have provided no further explanation of their theory of professional liability or negligence.” (LVH Defs.’ Opp’n Br. at 3). After Plaintiffs submitted a Proposed Second Amended Complaint including these professional negligence counts along with specific factual allegations, the LVH Defendants did not assert that such claims were futile in their sur-reply brief. Given the doctrinal differences between professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with the LVH Defendants’ decision not to assert futility after being presented with Plaintiffs’ professional negligence factual allegations, Plaintiffs will be permitted to include these professional negligence claims against the LVH Defendants in their Second Amended Complaint.
As to Count V of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint alleging that LVH is vicariously liable for professional negligence through the acts of its agents, Perry and Coughlin, LVH claims that Plaintiffs’ attempt to collect punitive damages is futile under Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCare”) Act. (LVH Defs.’ Sur-reply Br. at 5-6); see 40 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1303.505(c) (precluding the awarding of punitive damages “against a health care provider who is only vicariously liable for the actions of its agent that causes the injury unless it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the party knew of and allowed the conduct by its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages”). Because Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to seek punitive damages against LVH for professional negligence was withdrawn at oral argument, this
2

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 3 of 20
(Proposed Second Am. Compl., Count VI);4 and (d) one general negligence count against F.H.’s father and F.H.’s mother (Proposed Second Am. Compl., Count VII).5 Plaintiffs also request
permission to add previously-identified minor, “Nicholas Coe,” as an additional party plaintiff with respect to all causes of action. (Pls.’ Mot. at 2).6
The Court has carefully considered the written submissions of the parties, as well as the
oral arguments presented to the Court on January 30, 2009 and accompanying supplemental
briefs. (Doc. No. 114). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states that leave to file an amended complaint should
be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “A party generally should
be permitted to amend a complaint where if it did so it could state a claim.” Gen. Refractories
request is denied as moot.
4
Defendant F.H. filed, under seal, a Reply Brief to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint that incorporated the arguments made in the Opposition Briefs of the ASD and LVH Defendants. (Doc. No. 97). Defendant F.H. does not argue that the added negligence count is futile, but rather contends that amendment at this stage would constitute undue delay and be prejudicial. See Berman v. Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 456 A.2d 545, 549 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (“[M]inors between the ages of seven and fourteen years are presumed incapable of negligence; however, such presumption is rebuttable and grows weaker as the fourteenth year grows closer.”).
5
In proposing this count, Plaintiffs are attempting to add F.H. Mother and F.H. Father as individual defendants in this matter. Currently, F.H. Father and F.H. Mother are only involved as guardians to F.H. Because F.H. Father and F.H. Mother are not parties in this action and no notice of appearance has been filed by counsel on their behalf, the sufficiency of the allegations in this count has not been briefed. Accordingly, the inclusion of this new count will be permitted, and, after being appropriately served by Plaintiffs, F.H. Father and F.H. Mother will be given the opportunity to answer the Second Amended Complaint or otherwise object to the count pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6
At oral argument, LVH, Perry, and Coughlin withdrew their objections to Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
3

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 4 of 20
Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297, 309 (3d Cir. 2003). “Amendment, however, is not automatic.” Butz v. Lawns Unlimited Ltd., 568 F. Supp. 2d 468, 479 (D. Del. 2008). A district court may exercise its discretion to deny the request “if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.” Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2004); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). In applying that standard, the Court is mindful of the Third Circuit’s teaching that our exercise of discretion should comport with the liberal approach to amendment embodied in the judicial interpretation of Rule 15. See Berkshire Fashions, Inc. v. M.V. Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874, 887 (3d Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS I. Undue Delay, Bad Faith, Dilatory Motives, and Prejudice
Defendants claim that leave to file any amendments to the Amended Complaint should be denied because Plaintiffs have demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, and because any amendment would also result in prejudice. Defendants specifically contend that Plaintiffs indicated an intent to file a Second Amended Complaint as early as October 25, 2007, yet failed to seek leave to amend until April 17, 2008, and only provided Defendants with a Proposed Second Amended Complaint on June 6, 2008. (LVH Defs.’ Opp’n Br. at 3; ASD Defs.’ Opp’n Br. at 4). “The passage of time, without more, does not require that a motion to amend a complaint be denied; however, at some point, the delay will become ‘undue,’ placing an unwarranted burden on the court, or will become ‘prejudicial,’ placing an unfair burden on the opposing party.” Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
4

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 5 of 20
1122 (1985). While there certainly was some delay in Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended
Complaint, this delay was not undue given that discovery has not yet been conducted on the counts in the Amended Complaint, initial disclosures have not yet been exchanged, a scheduling order has not yet been issued by the Court, and a Rule 16 conference has not yet been held. (Pls.’ Br. at 6). Counsel for all parties also acknowledged at oral argument that a Rule 26(f) conference has not yet been conducted. See Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[D]elay alone is an insufficient ground to deny leave to amend.”); Adams, 739 F.2d at 869 (“Since amendment of a complaint is not unusual at the summary judgment stage of the case, we would not characterize plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint earlier as ‘undue delay.’”) (internal citation omitted); Achey v. Crete Carrier Corp., No. 07-3592, 2009 WL 101843, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2009) (delay was not undue even after defendants had filed motion for partial summary judgment); Bernheim v. Estate of Bedrick, No. 07-2195, 2007 WL 2900377, at *3 n.4 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2007) (no undue delay where the “plaintiff filed his motion the same day as the Rule 16 conference and before discovery commenced.”). Because Defendants have only shown the mere passage of time, without establishing that this delay would place an unwarranted burden on the Court or the parties, this delay is insufficient to preclude Plaintiffs from adding claims to the Amended Complaint given the liberal approach to amendment embodied in Rule 15.7
7 The LVH Defendants attempt to impute bad faith on the part of Plaintiffs by pointing out that Plaintiffs identified Margaret Perry and Kathleen E. Coughlin as ASD Defendants in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, when they are actually LVH Defendants. (LVH Defs.’ Sur-reply Br. at 2-3; Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 27). The LVH Defendants claim that this constitutes an effort by Plaintiffs to “portray Lehigh Valley Hospital Defendants as state actors.” (LVH Defs.’ Sur-reply Br. at 3). This can hardly be considered bad faith. As
5

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 6 of 20
Additionally, no real prejudice would be created if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. See Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[P]rejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for the denial of an amendment.”). As stated above, this case is still in its early stages, as discovery has not yet been conducted. (Pls.’ Br. at 6). Defendants have also had the opportunity to brief and fully address the specific allegations made in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 737, 745 (D.N.J. 2000) (“The test for prejudice is whether the non-moving party will be denied ‘a fair opportunity to defend and offer additional evidence’ to address the amendment.”) (quoting Evans Prods. Co. v. West Am. Ins. Co., 736 F.2d 920, 924 (3d Cir. 1984)). Finally, while Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint contains new counts, the underlying facts supporting these new counts are “based on facts similar to those comprising the original [amended] complaint.” See Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Achey, 2009 WL 101843, at *3. Given that this litigation is still in its infancy, Defendants had a fair opportunity to address Plaintiffs’ new claims, and the new counts are based on facts already known to Defendants, there is little, if any, prejudice in permitting Plaintiffs to amend their Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, Defendants have failed to show undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motives, or prejudice that would compel the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint. As a result, amendment will be permitted unless Defendants can show that amendment would be futile.
Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged during oral argument, this was merely a drafting error. However, this drafting error shall be corrected when Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint with the Court.
6

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 7 of 20
II. Futility “Futility” means that “the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.” In re Alpharma Inc. Sec. Litig., 372 F.3d 137, 153 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, in assessing “futility,” the district court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency that applies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id. at 153-54. Rule 12(b)(6) allows courts to screen out cases where “a complaint states a claim based upon a wrong for which there is clearly no remedy, or a claim which the plaintiff is without right or power to assert and for which no relief could possibly be granted.” Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 312 (3d Cir. 1999). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals instructs that “the complaint will withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) attack if the material facts as alleged, in addition to inferences drawn from those allegations, provide a basis for recovery.” See Menkowitz v. Pottstown Mem’l Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113, 124-25 (3d Cir. 1998). In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court is required to accept all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Thus, amendment should be denied when it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his [new] claim[s] which would entitle him to relief.” See Johnsrud v. Carter, 620 F.2d 29, 33 (3d Cir. 1980).
A. Title IX Claim Against Allentown School District In Count II of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that ASD and the ASD Individual Defendants (collectively, “ASD Defendants”) “were aware that Defendant F.H. committed acts of peer sexual harassment on the minor Plaintiffs and others in the past” and “created a substantial risk of harm of sexual assault of others” by failing “to take
7

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 8 of 20
any action to prevent Defendant F.H. from committing such acts on the Plaintiffs.” (Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 83, Count II). According to Plaintiffs, the conduct perpetrated by Defendant F.H. and known to the ASD Defendants created “a hostile educational environment for the minor Plaintiffs” in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. (Id. at ¶ 84).
The ASD Defendants initially contended that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend the Amended Complaint to add this Title IX claim because such an amendment would be futile under the doctrine set forth in Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association, 453 U.S. 1 (1981). The ASD Defendants argued that, under the Sea Clammers doctrine, the proposed Title IX claim could not coexist with the current Section 1983 constitutional claim against ASD (Count I) because the Title IX claim (Proposed Count II) would render the Section 1983 claim superfluous. (ASD Defs.’ Sur-reply Br. at 2, 3-5). In particular, the ASD Defendants asserted that the proposed amendment should not be permitted because, otherwise, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim—which arises out of the same conduct that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim—would be “subsumed” by Plaintiffs’ Title IX claim. (Id.).
In Sea Clammers, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a state official is alleged to have violated a federal statute which provides its own comprehensive enforcement scheme, the requirements of that enforcement procedure may not be bypassed by bringing suit directly under § 1983.” Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 20 (internal quotation omitted). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has applied this rule to hold that Title IX claims subsume Section 1983 constitutional claims against school districts and state officials acting in their official capacities. See Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist., 917 F.2d 779, 789 (3d Cir. 1990), overruled by Fitzgerald v.
8

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 9 of 20
Barnstable Sch. Comm., 129 S. Ct. 788 (2009); see also Williams v. Sch. Dist. of Bethlehem, 998 F.2d 168, 176 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1043 (1994). The rationale behind the Third Circuit’s extension of the Sea Clammers doctrine to Title IX claims was that the remedies provided in Title IX implied that Congress viewed Title IX, not Section 1983, as the exclusive vehicle for redressing violations of civil rights by federally-funded educational institutions. District courts within the Third Circuit have similarly used this extension of the Sea Clammers doctrine to bar Section 1983 claims where such claims were based on alleged violations of the constitutional right to bodily integrity and brought concurrently with Title IX claims. See, e.g., Jones v. Indiana Area Sch. Dist., 397 F. Supp. 2d 628, 646 (W.D. Pa. 2005) (dismissing, under Sea Clammers doctrine, Section 1983 claim based on constitutional right to bodily integrity made against school officials in their official capacities); Miller v. Kentosh, No. 97-6451, 1998 WL 355520, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1998) (dismissing Section 1983 bodily integrity claims against school officials in their official capacities under Sea Clammers doctrine at motion to dismiss stage).
However, the Third Circuit’s extension of the Sea Clammers doctrine to preclude concurrent Title IX and Section 1983 claims was recently overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 129 S. Ct. 788 (2009). There, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Title IX does not preclude an accompanying Section 1983 action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools. In Fitzgerald, the daughter of the plaintiffs was allegedly molested by a boy on a school bus. Id. at 792. Based on subsequent investigations conducted by the police and the school, the school’s principal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to discipline the boy. Id. The school principal proposed some
9

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 10 of 20
remedial measures to the plaintiffs, all of which were rejected based on the plaintiffs’ belief that these proposals essentially punished their daughter. Id. The plaintiffs countered with proposals of their own, which were not acted upon by the defendant school superintendent. Id. The plaintiffs then began driving their daughter to school so that she would avoid contact with the boy on the bus. Id. The plaintiffs’ daughter, however, continued to inform the plaintiffs of additional incidents at school, which were reported to the school principal and ultimately resulted in plaintiffs’ daughter missing days of school. Id. The plaintiffs subsequently brought claims against the local school committee under both Section 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Id. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Section 1983 action, which was granted by the district court. Id. at 793. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and, like the Third Circuit, concluded that the plaintiffs’ Title IX claim precluded their Section 1983 action. Id. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that Title IX did not contain a remedial scheme comparable to those at issue in Sea Clammers and other similar cases. Id. at 795-96. The Fitzgerald Court found that, because Title IX’s only express enforcement mechanism is an administrative procedure resulting in the withdrawal of federal funding from noncompliant institutions, it must be concluded that “Title IX was not meant to be an exclusive mechanism for addressing gender discrimination in schools, or a substitute for § 1983 suits as a means of enforcing constitutional rights.” Id. at 797. After Fitzgerald—as Defendants acknowledged at oral argument—the Sea Clammers doctrine does not render as futile Plaintiffs’ effort to amend their Amended Complaint to include a Title IX claim against ASD alongside their existing Section 1983 claim. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request to amend their
10

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 11 of 20
Amended Complaint to include a Title IX claim against ASD is granted.8 However, Plaintiffs’ effort to include a claim for punitive damages against ASD in the ad
damnum clause of the proposed Title IX count is futile.9 The School District contends that, as a municipal entity, it is not subject to claims for punitive damages under Title IX. It is not in dispute that public school districts, like ASD, are considered municipal entities. See, e.g., Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989). “The general rule today is that no punitive damages are allowed [against municipalities] unless expressly authorized by statute.” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 261 n.21 (1981); see also Cook County v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 129 (2003); Flier v. Cayuga County, No. 03-578, 2006 WL 2655698, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2006). However, while this principle is most often applied to preclude punitive damages against municipalities in the Section 1983 context, district courts within this circuit have held that punitive damages cannot be imposed on a municipality under Title IX. See, e.g., Dawn L. v. Greater Johnstown Sch. Dist., No. 06-0019, 2008 WL 857453, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2008) (“The Court agrees that punitive damages under Title IX are not recoverable against a municipal entity such as the Defendant school district.”); Crawford v. Sch.
8
Though Title IX claims may be asserted against school officials in their official capacities, the real party in interest is the school district. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985) (“As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”); Irene B. v. Philadelphia Acad. Charter Sch., No. 02-1716, 2003 WL 24052009, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2003) (“Since official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which the officer is an agent, it is appropriate to dismiss the claims against the individual in his official capacity and retain them against the real party in interest.”) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, as in the Court’s September 21, 2007 Order (Doc. No. 79), amendment to include Title IX claims against the ASD Individual Defendants in their official capacities will not be permitted. See Doe, 2007 WL 2814587, at *9 n.9.
9 It should be noted that, in their supplemental filing in advance of oral argument, Plaintiffs withdrew their request to include a claim for punitive damages against ASD for Title IX violations. However, at oral argument, Plaintiffs stated that, upon conducting additional research in preparation for oral argument, they wished to, once again, seek punitive damages against ASD as part of their Title IX claim.
11

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 12 of 20
Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 98-1851, 1998 WL 288288 at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1998) (holding, at motion to dismiss stage, that “the plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages from the School District of Philadelphia” under either Section 1983 or Title IX); see also Landon v. Oswego Unit Sch. Dist. No. 308, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1013 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (holding that “the considerations of common law history, public policy, and Supreme Court precedent do not support exposing a municipality to punitive damages for the misconduct of its officials pursuant to Title IX”).10 The Court agrees with the reasoning of these courts and therefore holds that it would be futile to permit Plaintiffs to include a claim for punitive damages as part of their Title IX claim against ASD.11
Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request to add Title IX claims against the ASD Individual Defendants in their individual capacities is denied as moot, as Plaintiffs withdrew this request at oral argument. See, e.g., Kinman v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 171 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Several circuits have held that because they are not grant recipients, school officials may not be sued in their individual capacity under Title IX.”); Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F. Supp. 633, 636-38 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that Title IX did not support a cause of action against an
10 At oral argument, Plaintiffs cited Hurd v. Delaware State Univ., No. 07-117, 2008 WL 4369983 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2008) (Thynge, M.J.) in support of their contention that the School District can be held liable for punitive damages pursuant to Title IX. In Hurd, the plaintiff filed a Title IX complaint against Delaware State University (“DSU”). Id. at *1. The district court ultimately held at the summary judgment stage that a question of fact remained as to whether DSU’s conduct or failure to respond to the plaintiff’s allegations constituted malice or reckless indifference sufficient to impose punitive damages. Id. at *5-6. Hurd, however, does not change the rule that punitive damages are generally not recoverable against a municipality, and Plaintiffs do not dispute ASD’s status as a municipal entity. See Dawn L., 2008 WL 857453, at *14; see also Hooper v. North Carolina, 379 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (dismissing plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages under Title IX against North Carolina Central University).
11
Plaintiffs’ existing claim for punitive damages against ASD for Section 1983 violations remains, as this claim is not related to Plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend. ASD can address Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 punitive damages claim in a motion for summary judgment.
12

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 13 of 20
individual who was the administrator of student organizations and activities at a university).12 B. Title IX Claim Against Lehigh Valley Hospital At oral argument, Plaintiffs stated that they are also asserting a Title IX claim against
LVH. It is worth noting that Plaintiffs’ proposed Title IX count does not even mention LVH, Perry, or Coughlin, nor does Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint state that they are making a Title IX claim against LVH. Rather, Plaintiffs’ Motion explains that their Title IX allegations are made only against “the School District of the City of Allentown and individual School District employees.” (Pls.’ Mot. at 2). Plaintiffs contended during oral argument that their Proposed Second Amended Complaint should be read to make out a Title IX claim against LVH by virtue of the Complaint’s assertion that LVH “functioned under color of state law, as the entity responsible for health care, medical care, education, social services, and associated treatment within certain schools of Allentown School District.” (Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 7) (emphasis added). In further support of their Title IX claim against LVH, Plaintiffs cited the following language from their Proposed Second Amended Complaint: (1) the clause in Plaintiffs’ proposed Title IX count incorporating by reference acts stated earlier in the Complaint engaged in by LVH (Id. ¶ 75);13 and (2) the “Wherefore” clause of Plaintiffs’ proposed Title IX count seeking judgment against “Defendant Allentown School District, jointly
12 The Court need not address the ASD Defendants’ argument that, to the extent that the parents of the minor Plaintiffs are asserting a Title IX claim in their individual capacities, they should be precluded from doing so because they lack standing. (ASD Defs.’ Sur-reply Br. at 3). According to the case caption and allegations in both the Amended Complaint and the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, the parents are only acting as representatives of the minor Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at oral argument that Plaintiffs’ parents are not asserting a Title IX claim in their individual capacities.
13
Plaintiffs have not alerted the Court as to which factual allegations made earlier in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint against LVH fit the elements of a Title IX claim.
13

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 14 of 20
and severally with other named Defendants,” for damages. (Id., Proposed Count II). The Court does not read Plaintiffs’ proposed Title IX count as asserting a claim against
LVH. However, now taking Plaintiffs at their word that they are asserting a Title IX claim against LVH based on their representations during oral argument, such a claim does not survive a futility analysis. Under Title IX, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (emphasis added).14 By Title IX’s own terms, even if LVH is found to have acted under color of state law, such a finding, by itself, would not be sufficient to impose liability.15 Indeed, the Court is required to further inquire into whether LVH runs a program or activity involving “education” and receives “federal financial assistance.” See O’Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[W]e think it evident that in order to implicate Title IX in the first instance, an entity must have features such that one could reasonably consider its mission to be, at least in part, educational.”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1114 (1998); 20 U.S.C. § 1687 (stating that, to qualify as a “program or activity,” any part of this entity must be “extended Federal financial assistance”). The Proposed Second Amended Complaint does allege that LVH provides educational services, see Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 7, but makes no mention of LVH receiving “federal financial
14
Title IX defines a “program or activity” as all of the operations of, among other things, “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government.” 20 U.S.C. § 1687(1)(A) (emphasis added).
15
In response to LVH’s initial motion to dismiss, the Court concluded that, at such an early stage, the record was not sufficiently developed to permit an inquiry into “whether LVH and its employees acted under color of state law.” Doe, 2007 WL 2814587, at *8 (Doc. No. 79).
14

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 15 of 20
assistance.”16 Though LVH may, in fact, receive federal funds, the Court cannot speculate as to whether this is the case. Accordingly, the Court infers that Plaintiffs are attempting to place LVH in the shoes of a federal funds recipient by virtue of LVH’s relationship with ASD—an entity that receives federal funds—as the provider of healthcare to students within the School District.
A bare allegation that an entity contracts with a school district is insufficient to constitute an assertion that the entity receives federal funds. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in the context of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—which is similar to Title IX17—an entity that is a beneficiary of the federal funds received by another is not considered a federal funding recipient unless the entity is “in a position to accept or reject [their] obligations as part of the decision whether or not to ‘receive’ federal funds.” See Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 605-06 (1986). Similarly, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that, in determining whether an indirect recipient of federal funds is covered by the statute, a court should consider, among other things, “the degree to which the entity is able to control decisions made with respect to the money, the most important decision being whether the grant money should be accepted at all.” Smith v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 266 F.3d 152, 161 (3d Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs, however, have pleaded no facts in their Proposed Second Amended Complaint suggesting that LVH has a relationship with ASD enabling LVH to control
16
The Proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that ASD is an educational institution that receives federal financial assistance. (Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33, 76).
17
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in substantially the same terms that Title IX uses to prohibit gender discrimination.” See Smith v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 266 F.3d 152, 161 n.7 (3d Cir. 2001).
15

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 16 of 20
the decisions made with respect to ASD’s federal funding. See J. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 06-3866, 2007 WL 1221216, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2007) (dismissing Rehabilitation Act claim at Rule 12(b)(6) stage where plaintiff “pleaded no facts suggesting Community Council has a relationship with the School District enabling it to control the decisions made with respect to the District’s federal funding”).
Furthermore, in cases that do not involve official policy of the recipient entity, “a damages remedy will not lie under Title IX unless an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs and fails adequately to respond.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998) (emphasis added); see also Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 646-47 (1999) (“We thus conclude that recipients of federal funding may be liable for ‘subject[ing]’ their students to discrimination where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-student sexual harassment and the harasser is under the school’s disciplinary authority.”) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s proposed Title IX count does not make any allegation that LVH is, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1682, an “appropriate person” with authority to take corrective action to end the alleged discrimination within the School District. See Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of Title IX claim at 12(b)(6) stage where plaintiff “failed to allege that [defendant university president] has authority to take action to change the policies of the Board of Regents”); Frederick v. Simpson College, 149 F. Supp. 2d 826, 836-37 (S.D. Iowa 2001) (discussing the minimal level of authority requirement in Gebser). Despite Plaintiffs’ contentions, having an affiliation with a federally-
16

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 17 of 20
funded educational institution is simply not enough to impose Title IX liability. Given these deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ proposed Title IX claim against LVH is futile.18
An appropriate Order follows.
18 At oral argument, Plaintiffs cited Piascik v. Cleveland Museum of Art, 426 F. Supp. 779 (N.D. Ohio) in support of their claim that LVH can be held liable under Title IX. In Piascik, the plaintiff brought a Title IX action against the Cleveland Museum of Art (“Museum”) alleging that the Museum had rejected her application for employment as a security guard because of her sex. Id. at 780-81. The Museum received federal assistance for an educational program it operated for the East Cleveland school system, and it also operated a library, slide, and various teaching facilities for 80 to 90 Case Western Reserve University students, for which the museum was paid. Id. at 781 n.1. Based on this evidence, the district court held that the defendant museum qualified as an education activity receiving federal financial assistance. Id. This case does not provide support for Plaintiffs’ argument that LVH can be held liable under Title IX. Unlike Piascik, Plaintiffs have not alleged that LVH is a federal funds recipient or that LVH had authority to take corrective measures on behalf of ASD.
17

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 18 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNIOR DOE, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
Defendants

: : : CIVIL ACTION : : : NO. 06-cv-1926 : : : :

ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of February 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Defendants’ responses, Plaintiffs’ Reply consisting of a Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Sur-reply briefs, and after having heard oral argument and examined the parties’ supplemental submissions, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. No. 93) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include a sexual discrimination and harassment count under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against Defendant Allentown School District is GRANTED. However, Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against Defendant Allentown School District for violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include a sexual discrimination and harassment count under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against the ASD Individual

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 19 of 20
Defendants in their individual capacities is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT, as this request was withdrawn at oral argument. Finally, Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include a sexual discrimination and harassment count under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against Defendant Lehigh Valley Hospital is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include professional negligence counts against Defendants Lehigh Valley Hospital, Margaret Perry, and Kathleen E. Coughlin is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendant Lehigh Valley Hospital for professional negligence is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS MOOT, as this request was withdrawn at oral argument.
3. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include one general negligence count against minor Defendant F.H. is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Amended Complaint to include one general negligence count against both F.H. Father and F.H. Mother is GRANTED. After F.H. Father and F.H. Mother are properly served with the Second Amended Complaint, they will be given an opportunity to respond to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs by answering the Complaint or filing an appropriate motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Plaintiffs’ request to add previously-identified minor, “Nicholas Coe,” as an additional party plaintiff with respect to all causes of action through the filing of a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
6. Plaintiffs are directed to file and serve on all parties a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this Order within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

Case 2:06-cv-01926-PD Document 117 Filed 03/02/09 Page 20 of 20
7. Defendants, excluding F.H. Father and F.H. Mother, shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of being served with the Second Amended Complaint.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Thomas M. Golden THOMAS M. GOLDEN, J.

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 1 of 42
SEALDC,SEAL−ORD,CLOSED,A/R,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−01926−TR

JUNIOR DOE v. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT et al Assigned to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/05/2006 Date Terminated: 07/16/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

JUNIOR DOE A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, AND JANE DOE, HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JAMES L. PFEIFFER PFEIFFER, BRUNO, MINOTTI & DEESCH 44 NORTH SECOND STREET EASTON, PA 18042 610−258−4003 Email: jpfeiffer@pbmdlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH PFEIFFER & BRUNO, P.C. 44 NORTH SECOND STREET EASTON, PA 18042 610−258−4003 Fax: 610−258−1943 Email: brush@pbmdlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

CHARLES BRUNO PFEIFFER, BRUNO, MINOTTI & DEESCH 44 EAST SECOND STREET EASTON, PA 18042 610−258−4003 Fax: 610−258−1943 Email: cbruno@pbmdlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

SCOTT M. WILHELM WINEGAR WILHELM GLYNN & ROEMERSMA P.O. BOX 800 305 ROSEBERRY STREET PHILLIPSBURG, NJ 08865 908−454−3200 Email: wilhelms@wwgrlaw.com TERMINATED: 06/25/2007

Plaintiff
DONALD NOE a minor, by JANE NOE and GRANDMOTHER NOE, his natural parent and/or legal guardian TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 2 of 42

TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

SCOTT M. WILHELM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2007

Plaintiff
JUNIOR ROE by JANE ROE, his parent and natural guardian TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

SCOTT M. WILHELM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2007

Plaintiff
JOHN DOE I A MINOR BY HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS

represented by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN DOE II A MINOR BY HIS NATURAL PARENT AND/OR LEGAL GUARDIAN

represented by CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN DOE III A MINOR BY HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

represented by CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 3 of 42

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN DOE IV A MINOR BY HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

represented by CHARLES BRUNO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JAMES L. PFEIFFER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by ALLISON R. BROWN US DEPT OF JUSTICE 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW PATRICK HENRY BLDG STE 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202−305−3308 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANNETTA FOSTER GIVHAN U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 615 CHESTNUT ST. SUITE 1250 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−861−8319 Fax: 215−861−8349 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES A. EICHNER U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SECTION 601 D ST NW SUITE 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 202−514−0462 Email: james.eichner@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL L. LEVY ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 615 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 1250 PHILA, PA 19106−4476 TEL 215−861−8599 Fax: FAX 215−861−8618 Email: mike.levy@usdoj.gov

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 4 of 42
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMANDA DOWNS FRIZZELLE U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIV 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW PATRICK HENRY BLDG STE 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−305−3223 Email: amanda.frizzelle@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/14/2011
KATHLEEN S. DEVINE US DEPT OF JUSTICE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SECTION CIV RIGHTS DIV 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW PATRICK HENRY BLDG SUITE 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202−307−0480 Email: kathleen.s.devine@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MELISSA JULIA MICHAUD U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW PATRICK HENRY BLDG STE 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202−514−5106 Email: melissa.michaud@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/12/2013
MICHAEL S. MACKO U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ONE INDEPENDENCE MALL 615 CHESTNUT ST SUITE 1250 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106−4476 215−861−8200 Fax: 215−861−8618 Email: michael.macko@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NICHOLAS ULYSSES MURPHY , II US DEPT OF JUSTICE 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW PHB 4300 WASHINGTON, DC 20004 202−307−6358 Email: Nicholas.Murphy@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT A/K/A "THE ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN" TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III KING, SPRY, HERMAN, FREUND & FAUL, LLC ONE WEST BROAD STREET, SUITE 700 BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 610−332−0390 Fax: 610−332−0314 Email: jef@kingspry.com

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 5 of 42

TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

ELIZABETH M. KELLY KING SPRY HERMAN FREUND & FAUL LLC ONE WEST BROAD ST STE 700 BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 610−332−0390 Email: ekelly@kingspry.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELLEN C. SCHURDAK KING, SPRY, HERMAN, FREUND & FAUL, LLC ONE WEST BROAD STREET SUITE 700 BETHLEHEM, PA 18018 610−332−0390 Email: ecs@kingspry.com TERMINATED: 08/03/2011

Defendant
LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. TERMINATED: 12/02/2011

represented by GEORGINE A. OLEXA TALLMAN, HUDDERS & SORRENTINO 1611 POND ROAD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN, PA 18104−2258 610−391−1805 Email: golexa@thslaw.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

HOWARD S. STEVENS GROSS MCGINLEY, LLP 33 SOUTH 7TH STREET P.O. BOX 4060 ALLENTOWN, PA 18105−4060 610−820−5450 Fax: 610−820−6006 Email: hstevens@grossmcginley.com TERMINATED: 12/02/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEVEN E. HOFFMAN NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PC 515 WEST HAMILTON STREET SUITE 502 ALLENTOWN, PA 18101 TEL (610) 391−1800 Email: shoffman@nmmlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/27/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

ANDREW H. RALSTON , JR. White and Williams LLP 3701 Corporate Parkway Suite 300 Center Valley, PA 18034 610−782−4908 Fax: 610−782−4938 Email: ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 6 of 42

TERMINATED: 07/23/2008

CATHERINE L. KOLLET GROSS MCGINLEY LLP 33 S. 7TH ST. P.O. BOX 4060 ALLENTOWN, PA 18105 610−820−5450 TERMINATED: 12/02/2011

GLENN GUANOWSKY LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL & HEALTH NETWORK DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL SERVICES 234 N. 17TH ST. ALLENTOWN, PA 18104 610−969−2774 Email: Glenn.Guanowsky@LVHN.org TERMINATED: 12/02/2011

RICHARD F. STEVENS STEVENS & JOHNSON 740 HAMILTON MALL ALLENTOWN, PA 18101 610−439−1451 Fax: MDL TERMINATED TERMINATED: 12/10/2009

Defendant
EVA W. HADDON IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS PRINCIPAL TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
BRADLEY CARTER IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SUPERINTENDENT TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
EVELYN W. ROSSI IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
KAREN J. BOARDMAN IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT−ELEMENTARY, N/K/A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 7 of 42

DIANE M. HOLBEN IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, PLANNING & ACCOUNTABILITY TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
RITA D. PEREZ IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL & STAFF DEVELOPMENT TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
RALPH A. DAUBERT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND STUDENT SERVICES TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
RALPH S. TODD IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
DEBORAH HARTMAN IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES N/K/A DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
GERALD BROWN IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TEACHER TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
AMY ENRIGHT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TEACHER TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
LORI FRIEBOLIN IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TEACHER TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 8 of 42

KIM CECCATTI IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS GUIDANCE COUNSELOR TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
CATHERINE BUCKS IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TEACHER TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
JENNA HEILAND IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SCHOOL NURSE TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
PEG PERRY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SCHOOL NURSE TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by HOWARD S. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

ANDREW H. RALSTON , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2008

RICHARD F. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2009

Defendant
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SOCIAL WORKER TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

represented by HOWARD S. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

JONATHAN B. SPRAGUE POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD 13TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−587−1155 Fax: 215−587−1444 Email: sprag80@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

ANDREW H. RALSTON , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2008

Defendant
F.H. A MINOR, THROUGH F.H. FATHER AND F.H. MOTHER, HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS

represented by MARC S. FISHER WORTH MAGEE & FISHER 2610 WALBERT AVE ALLENTOWN, PA 18104

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 9 of 42

610−437−4896 Fax: 610−433−3955 Email: mfisher@worthlawoffices.com TERMINATED: 03/10/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SEAN PATRICK MCCONNELL DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−979−1947 Email: spmcconnell@duanemorris.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN D. BROWN DECHERT LLP 2929 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104 TEL 215−994−2240 Fax: FAX 215−655−2240 Email: stephen.brown@dechert.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1−5) (FICTITIOUS PUBLIC ENTITIES) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

Defendant
THOMAS DOES (1−5) TERMINATED: 03/09/2009

Defendant
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN also known as ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH M. KELLY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MARGARET PARRY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SCHOOL NURSE TERMINATED: 08/03/2011 also known as PEG PARRY

represented by HOWARD S. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 10 of 42

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2011

RICHARD F. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2009

Defendant
F.H. FATHER INDIVIDUALLY

represented by PHILIP G. KIRCHER COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 MARKET ST PHILA, PA 19103 215−665−7233 Fax: 215−701−2033 Email: pkircher@cozen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

TAMAR S. WISE COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103−3572 215−665−5570 Email: twise@cozen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
F.H. MOTHER INDIVIDUALLY

represented by PHILIP G. KIRCHER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

TAMAR S. WISE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EVA W. HADDON INDIVIDUALLY

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
BRADLEY CARTER INDIVIDUALLY

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 11 of 42

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
EVELYN W. ROSSI INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
KAREN J. BOARDMAN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
DIANE M. HOLBEN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
RITA D. PEREZ INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
RALPH A. DAUBERT INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 12 of 42

Defendant RALPH S. TODD INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant DEBORAH HARTMAN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant GERALD BROWN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant AMY ENRIGHT INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant LORI FRIEBOLIN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
Defendant

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011
represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 13 of 42

KIM CECCATTI INDIVIDUALLY

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CATHERINE BUCKS INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
JENNA HEILAND INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

represented by JOHN E. FREUND , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/14/2011

Defendant
KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN INDIVIDUALLY TERMINATED: 12/02/2011

represented by HOWARD S. STEVENS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

CATHERINE L. KOLLET (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2011

Defendant
JOHN DOE V A MINOR BY HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

represented by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

represented by ELIZABETH M. KELLY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/06/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
THOMAS M. CAFFREY NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA 515 W HAMILTON ST SUITE 502 ALLENTOWN, PA 18101 484 765 2209 Email: tcaffrey@nmmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 14 of 42

Movant DONALD CUNNINGHAM
Movant ELIZABETH FRITZ
Movant HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PLATT

represented by THOMAS M. CAFFREY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by THOMAS M. CAFFREY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL DALEY SUPREME COURT OF PA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PA COURTS 1515 MARKET ST., STE 1414 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−560−6300 Email: legaldepartment@pacourts.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/05/2006
05/05/2006 05/05/2006
07/05/2006 07/05/2006 08/01/2006 08/28/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1−5), THOMAS DOES (1−5), ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 5369.), filed by JUNIOR DOE.(ky, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by JUNIOR DOE. (ky, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
23 Original Summonses Issued as to KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1−5), ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI. Forwarded To: counsel on 5/5/06. (ky, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
2 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Certificate of Merit As To Kathleen E. Coughlin by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of all plaintiffs (RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
3 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Certificate of Merit As To Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc. by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of all plaintiffs (RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
4 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM JUDGE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE TO JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ON 8/1/06. 8/1/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(kw, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., ABC PUBLIC AGENCIES (1−5), THOMAS DOES (1−5), ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH VALLEY

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 15 of 42

08/28/2006
09/07/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/14/2006 09/14/2006 09/18/2006
09/18/2006

HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI , filed by DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE, JUNIOR DOE; service by LEHIGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.(ky, ) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
21 Original Summonses Issued as to KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI. Given To: COUNSEL on 8/28/06 to be served by the Lehigh County Sheriff's Office. (ky, ) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by GEORGINE A. OLEXA on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. with Jury Demand and/or Certificate of Service (OLEXA, GEORGINE) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of KAREN J. BOARDMAN, GERALD BROWN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of RALPH A. DAUBERT, AMY ENRIGHT (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of DIANE M. HOLBEN, DEBORAH HARTMAN, LORI FRIEBOLIN, JENNA HEILAND, EVA W. HADDON (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of RITA D. PEREZ, PEG PERRY (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, EVELYN W. ROSSI (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by JOHN E. FREUND, III on behalf of RALPH S. TODD (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE re 5 Amended Complaint,,, Summons Issued,, (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
15 Disclosure with Certificate of Service by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC..(OLEXA, GEORGINE) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
16 PRAECIPE of Appearance by RICHARD F. STEVENS on behalf of PEG PERRY with JURY DEMAND. (ky, ) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6) filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC..Brief, Certificate of Service & Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 12(1)(b) and (6)# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(OLEXA, GEORGINE) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT.brief, certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 brief# 4 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 16 of 42

09/19/2006 09/20/2006 09/20/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 10/07/2006 10/07/2006 10/07/2006 10/07/2006 10/07/2006
10/11/2006 10/11/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/17/2006

19 DEFENDANT PEG PERRY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 BRIEF IN SUPPORT# 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(ky, ) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6) filed by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service)(SPRAGUE, JONATHAN) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
21 Memorandum in Support re 20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6) filed by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(SPRAGUE, JONATHAN) Modified on 9/22/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 09/20/2006)
22 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Certificate of Merit as to Jenna Heiland by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of all plaintiffs (RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
23 CERTIFICATE of Counsel Certificate of Merit as to Peg Perry p/k/a Margaret Parry by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of all plaintiffs (RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
24 RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/07/2006)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/07/2006)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/07/2006)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/07/2006)
28 Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss re 20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6), 19 MOTION to Dismiss, 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Service)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/07/2006)
29 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT.MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 CERT OF SERVICE)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
30 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (in part) the Amended Complaint under F.R.C.P 12(b)(6) filed by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN.Proposed Order and Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(SPRAGUE, JONATHAN) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
31 Certificate of Merit as to Dr. Lourdes Sanchez by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of all plaintiffs (RUSH, BLAKE) Modified on 10/16/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
32 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE ALIAS SUMMONS by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (ky, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2007 (jmv, ). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
1 Original Summons Issued as to F.H., a minor; Forwarded To: counsel on 10/13/06. (ky, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
33 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS ORDERED TO APPOINT COUNSEL FROM THE PRISONERS CIVIL RIGHTS PANEL TO REPRESENT DEFENDANT F.H., A MINOR. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/13/06.

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 17 of 42

10/19/2006 10/26/2006 10/26/2006 10/27/2006 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 11/02/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/16/2006
11/20/2006

10/17/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
34 MOTION TO DISMISS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT PEG PERRY; BRIEF IN SUPPORT; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(ky, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/24/2006 (mbh, ). (Entered: 10/20/2006)
35 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE ALIAS SUMMONS BY PLAINTIFFS JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (ky, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2007 (jmv, ). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
8 Alias Summonses Issued as to RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, EVELYN W. ROSSI. Forwarded To: COUNSEL on 10/26/06. (ky, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
36 RESPONSE to Motion re 34 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant, Peg Perry's Second Motion to Dismiss filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
37 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IS GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS ARE PERMITTED TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/30/06. 11/1/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ky, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2007 (jmv, ). (Entered: 11/01/2006)
38 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/30/06.11/1/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (ky, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2007 (jmv, ). (Entered: 11/01/2006)
39 REPLY BRIEF in Support of Motion re 20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6) with Certificate of Service filed by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN. (SPRAGUE, JONATHAN) Modified on 11/3/2006 (np). (Entered: 11/02/2006)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
41 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST BY LETTER TO FILE A SUR−REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE THE SUR−REPLY BRIEF WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE FILING OF DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/9/06. 11/13/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED TO ALL COUNSEL. (ky, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
42 ORDER THAT THE REQUESTS BY LETTER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BY DEFENDANT LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL AND PLAINTIFF JUNIOR DOE ARE GRANTED. THE COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS ON 12/21/06 AT 9:30 A.M. AT THE READING STATION OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT. BY 12/14/06, THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT A SUMMARY OF THEIR ORAL ARGUMENT NOT EXCEEDING TEN PAGES; AND OTHER PARTIES TO THE SUIT WHO WISH TO TAKE PART IN ORAL ARGUMENTS SHALL SEND A NOTICE TO THE COURT BY LETTER NO LATER THAN 12/1/06. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/15/06. 11/16/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
43 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) Plaintiffs' Sur−Reply Brief in Opposition to Defendant, Allentown School District and Its Employees, Motion to Dismiss filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 11/20/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 18 of 42

12/06/2006
12/06/2006 12/06/2006
12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/20/2006
12/21/2006

44 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Basil E. Achey, Deputy Sheriff re: served Order for Service, Federal Summons, Amended Complaint and Notice of Right to Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge upon Evelyn W. Rossi by Personal Service on November 13, 2006 at 2:02 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT)**(FILED IN ERROR BY ATTY., INCORRECT PDF ATTACHMENT, ATTY. WILL RE−FILE DOCUMENT WITH CORRECT PDF ATTACHMENT)** Modified on 12/6/2006 (fh) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
45 AFFIDAVIT of Service by David B. Loncki, Deputy Sheriff re: served Notice of Right to Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction, Summons & Complaint upon Eva W. Haddon by Personal Service on November 21, 2006 at 3:20 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Basil E. Achey, Deputy Sheriff re: served Order for Service, Federal Summons, Amended Complaint and Notice of Right to Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge upon Evelyn W. Rossi by Personal Service on November 13, 2006 at 2:02 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
47 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Lee Lejer re: served Summons In Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Catherine Bucks by Personal on 11/29/2006 at 8:23 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
48 AFFIDAVIT of Service by M. Joseph #43 re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Kim Ceccatti by Personal on 11/27/2006 at 1340 (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
49 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Woody B. re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Lori Friebolin by Personal service on 11/27/2006.(WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 12/12/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 12/11/2006)
50 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Curto #38 re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Bradley Carter by Personal service on 11/27/06. (WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 12/12/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 12/11/2006)
51 AFFIDAVIT of Service by M. Joseph re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Sean M. Daubert, by personal service on 11/28/2006. (WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 12/12/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 12/11/2006)
52 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Larry Burger re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Ralph S. Todd by Personal service on 12/1/2006.(WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 12/12/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 12/11/2006)
53 AFFIDAVIT of Service by M. Joseph re: served Summons in Civil Action and Amended Complaint in Civil Action upon Ralph Daubert by Served on authorized agent, Sean M. Daubert, Son by Personal Service on 11/28/2006 . (WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 12/12/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 12/11/2006)
Update Answer Deadline. (cdd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Update Answer Deadline (cdd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Update Answer Deadline (cdd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Update Answer Deadline (cdd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
54 ORDER THAT THE COURT'S ORDER OF 11/15/06 SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT IS VACATED. THE COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS ON 1/18/07 AT 1:30 P.M. AT THE READING STATION. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 12/19/06. 12/20/06 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
55 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE as to 5 Amended Complaint,, by Amy Enright Re: accepted summons and complaint for AMY ENRIGHT on 12/20/2006, answer due 1/9/2007. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/21/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 19 of 42

12/27/2006 12/27/2006 01/02/2007 01/02/2007 01/09/2007
01/10/2007 01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/19/2007 01/25/2007
02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/08/2007
04/20/2007

56 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Lisa Reed re: served Federal Summons, Amended complaint and Notice of Right to Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge upon Dr. Lourdes Sanchez by Personal Service on 12/21/2006 at 7:50 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
57 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE as to 56 Affidavit of Service, by Dr. Lourdes Sanchez Re: accepted summons and complaint for JUNIOR DOE on 12/21/2006, answer due 1/10/2007; DONALD NOE on 12/21/2006, answer due 1/10/2007; JUNIOR ROE on 12/21/2006, answer due 1/10/2007. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
58 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Lisa Reed re: served Federal summons, Amended Complaint, Notice of Right to Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge upon authorized agent, Raegan M. Brown, wife on 12/28/2006 at 7:18 p.m. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
59 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE as to 58 Affidavit of Service, by Raegan Michelle Brown, authorized agent for Gerald Brown Re: accepted summons and complaint for GERALD BROWN on 12/28/2006, answer due 1/17/2007. (WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
60 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Deputy Boyle re: served Complaint upon Jennifer Heiland aka Jennifer Wilson by Personal Service on 12/26/2006 (WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 1/10/2007 (md) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTY WITH INCORRECT PDF ATTACHMENT; ATTY HAS RE−FILED DOCUMENT; SEE PAPER #61) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
61 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Deputy Boyle re: served Complaint upon Jennifer Heiland aka Jennifer Wilson by Personal Service on 12/26/2006, answer due 1/16/2007. (WILHELM, SCOTT) Modified on 1/10/2007 (md). (Entered: 01/10/2007)
62 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by GEORGINE A. OLEXA on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. (OLEXA, GEORGINE) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by STEVEN E. HOFFMAN on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. (HOFFMAN, STEVEN) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge THOMAS M. GOLDEN 1/18/07 re: Attorneys have oral arguement on behalf of DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFFS over five MOTIONS TO DISMISS. COURT questions counsel, all COUNSEL make closing remarks. COURT takes matter under advisement. (ky, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
65 Memorandum as a Supplement to Oral Argument and Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss re 20 MOTION to Dismiss (in part) The Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(6), 34 MOTION to Dismiss, 19 MOTION to Dismiss, 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(WILHELM, SCOTT) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
66 Letter RE: Memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (FREUND, JOHN) Modified on 2/5/2007 (np). (Entered: 02/02/2007)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/18/07 before Judge GOLDEN. Court Reporter: TERI LEFKOWITH. HEARING (jl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
68 ORDER THAT MARC S. FISHER, ESQUIRE IS HEREBY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE MINOR DEFENDANT, F.H., IN THIS MATTER. THE COURT'S ORDER REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE MINOR DEFENDANT F.H. FROM THE PRISONERS' CIVIL RIGHTS PANEL (DOCUMENT #33) IS HEREBY VACATED. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 2/7/07. 2/8/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
69 NOTICE of SUBSTITUTION Withdrawal of Appearance by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH AND ENTRY OF SCOTT M. WILHELM on behalf of all plaintiffs. (RUSH, BLAKE) Modified on 4/23/2007 (afm, ). (Entered: 04/20/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 20 of 42

05/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/25/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 08/23/2007 09/12/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007
09/28/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 10/08/2007 10/12/2007

70 NOTICE of Appearance by BLAKE WILLIAM RUSH on behalf of JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE with Certificate of Service(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
71 NOTICE of Appearance by JAMES L. PFEIFFER on behalf of JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE with Certificate of Service(PFEIFFER, JAMES) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
72 NOTICE of Appearance by JAMES L. PFEIFFER on behalf of JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE with Certificate of Service (Attachments: # 1 Withdrawal of Appearance of Scott M. Wilhelm, Esq.# 2 Certificate of Service)(PFEIFFER, JAMES) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
73 NOTICE of Appearance by RICHARD F. STEVENS, HOWARD S. STEVENS AND GLENN GUANOWSKY on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., KATHLEEN E. COUGHLAN and PEG PERRY with Jury Demand. (STEVENS, RICHARD) Modified on 7/27/2007 (le, ). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by GLENN GUANOWSKY on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.(DOCKETED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; DUPLICATE ENTRY) (GUANOWSKY, GLENN) Modified on 7/27/2007 (le, ). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
75 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by STEVEN E. HOFFMAN on behalf of LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.(HOFFMAN, STEVEN) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
76 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by JONATHAN B. SPRAGUE on behalf of KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(SPRAGUE, JONATHAN) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
77 Supplemental brief in support re 18 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 certificate of service) (FREUND, JOHN) Modified on 9/13/2007 (nd). (Entered: 09/12/2007)
78 NOTICE of CONFERENCE: STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/3/2007 AT 01:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN IN THE US DISTRICT COURT, 504 WEST HAMILTON ST., ALLENTOWN, PA, 3D FLOOR.(tl, ) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
79 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFT. LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION OF DEFT. ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO 12(b)(6) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION OF THE DEFT. PEG PERRY TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION OF THE DEFT. KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION OF DEFT. PEG PERRY TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 9/21/07. 9/24/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
80 NOTICE that the Status Conference in the above case set for 10/3/07 at 1:30 p.m. before the Hon. Thomas M. Golden in the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom C, Allentown, PA has been postponed to a date to be determined. (er, ) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
81 MOTION to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE.Brief. (Attachments: # 1 Motion# 2 Certificate of Service)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
82 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
83 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC..(STEVENS, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/08/2007)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. re 83 Answer to Amended Complaint (STEVENS, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/08/2007)
85 NOTICE of Appearance by CHARLES BRUNO on behalf of JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE with Certificate of Service(BRUNO, CHARLES)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 21 of 42

10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/17/2007 10/26/2007 04/03/2008 04/14/2008 04/17/2008 04/18/2008 04/22/2008 04/25/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 05/05/2008 05/06/2008 05/08/2008

(Entered: 10/12/2007)
86 RESPONSE to Motion re 81 MOTION to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) Certificate of Service, Order filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.. (STEVENS, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
87 Memorandum in Opposition re 81 MOTION to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.. (STEVENS, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
88 Memorandum in Opposition re 81 MOTION to Alter Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
89 NOTICE of Hearing:A STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, 10/25/2007 AT 09:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN IN ROOM 401, THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET, READING, PENNSYLVANIA.(silfies, ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
90 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge THOMAS M. GOLDEN re: An In Person Status Conference was held on 10/25/07 and not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
91 STIPULATION FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (FREUND, JOHN) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 4/4/2008 (nd). (Entered: 04/03/2008)
92 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/11/08. 4/14/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE.. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
94 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON BEHALF OF F.H. FILED BY F.H., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (FILED UNDER SEAL).(er, ) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 cert of service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
96 RESPONSE to Motion re 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Brief in Support)(STEVENS, HOWARD) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
97 REPLY OF F.H. TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ky, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
98 CERTIFICATE of Counsel by MARC S. FISHER on behalf of F.H., Certificate of Service.(ky, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
99 Brief in Answer to Motion for Protective Order on behalf of F.H. on behalf of Allentown School District Defendants, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2008: # 1 Sealed Document) (mbh, ). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
100 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Defendants' Briefs in Opposition filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(RUSH, BLAKE) Modified on 5/8/2008 (afm, ). (Entered: 05/06/2008)
101 RESPONSE to Motion re 94 MOTION for Protective Order filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Proposed Order)(STEVENS, HOWARD) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 22 of 42

05/19/2008 05/27/2008
06/06/2008 06/19/2008 07/07/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008 09/25/2008
09/26/2008
11/12/2008 11/17/2008 12/02/2008 12/18/2008

102 RESPONSE in Opposition re 94 MOTION for Protective Order filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Opposition, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
103 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A REPLY OF NO MORE THAN FIVE PAGES WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY OF NO MORE THAN FIVE PAGES WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE REPLY, IF THEY SO CHOOSE. SIGNED BY THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 5/23/08. 5/27/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
104 REPLY to Response to Motion re 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(PFEIFFER, JAMES) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
105 Memorandum sur−reply re 100 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Defendants' Briefs in Opposition, 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(STEVENS, HOWARD) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
107 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDREW H. RALSTON, JR on behalf of PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. with Certificate of Service(RALSTON, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
108 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by ANDREW H. RALSTON, JR on behalf of PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.(RALSTON, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
109 ORDER THAT DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER ARE HEREBY REFERRED TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT. PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER, DEFENDANT F.H.'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOCKET NO. 94) IS HEREBY REFERRED TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 9/23/08. 9/25/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
110 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER THAT AFTER CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 9/23/08. 9/26/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
111 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT re: An in person Oral Argument on Discovery was conducted in this case on 11/12/2008. This proceeding was not placed on the record. (ky, ) Modified on 11/18/2008 (afm, ). (PLACED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
112 ORDER THAT THE RECORD OF ORAL ARGUMENT HELD IN THIS MATTER ON NOVEMBER 12, 2008 BE PLACED UNDER SEAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/17/08. 11/17/08 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
113 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT ON 12/2/08. 12/2/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
114 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST BY LETTER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS GRANTED. THE COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS PENDING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 23 of 42

02/02/2009 02/17/2009 03/02/2009
03/09/2009
03/09/2009 03/10/2009 04/06/2009 04/07/2009 04/07/2009

(DOC. NO. 93) ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2009, AT9:30 A.M. AT READING STATION, THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 401, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19601. THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THEIR ORAL ARGUMENT NOT EXCEEDING FIVE PAGES BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2009. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 12/17/08. 12/18/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN re: A Motion Hearing was held on 1/30/09 on PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Attorneys for PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT argue motion. COURT questions counsel. Counsel are directed to hold a Rule 26 conference. COURT takes matter under advisement. Ruling will be issued. ( ky, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
116 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Minor Defendant, F.H. filed by F.H..Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FISHER, MARC) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
117 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE DIRECTED TO FILE AND SERVE ON ALL PARTIES A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS, EXCLUDING F.H. FATHER AND F.H. MOTHER SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF BEING SERVED WITH THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 2/26/09. 3/3/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
118 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN, MARGARET PARRY, F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER, KAREN J. BOARDMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI, filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.VERIFICATION.(mas, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
Summons Issued as to F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER. Forwarded To: Counsel on 3/10/09 (mas, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
119 ORDER THAT ATTORNEY MARC S. FISHER'S UNCONTENSTED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR MINOR DEFENDANT F.H. IS GRANTED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/9/09. 3/10/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
120 Certificate of Service and Exhibits RE: MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERIVCES, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(KELLY, ELIZABETH) Modified on 4/7/2009 (nd). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2009: # 3 sealed) (afm, ). Modified on 4/7/2009 (afm, ). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
121 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, Motion to Quash, Order. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(KELLY, ELIZABETH) Modified on 4/7/2009 (nd). Modified on 4/7/2009 (afm, ). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2009: # 2 SEALED) (afm, ). (Entered: 04/07/2009)
122 ORDER THAT, HAVING FOUND GOOD CAUSE PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1.5(a)(2) OF THE LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PLACE UNDER SEAL LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES' MOTION TO

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 24 of 42

04/20/2009
04/21/2009
04/21/2009 04/24/2009 04/27/2009 05/01/2009 05/11/2009 05/29/2009 06/18/2009

QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA (DOC. NOS. 120, 121). PLAINTIFFS ARE DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS ORDER ON NON−PARTY LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES WITHIN 3 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES SHALL SERVE ON ALL PARTIES COPIES OF ITS MOTION TO QUASH WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. ANY RESPONSE BY ANY PARTY TO THE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA SHALL BE FILED UNDER SEAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/7/09. 4/7/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND MAILED. (ky, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
123 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REFILE THEIR SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE HEREOF, ETC. THE DEFENDANTS' UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL SHALL THEN HAVE 20 DAYS FROM THE REFILING OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN WHICH TO FILE AN ANSWER, MOTION OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO SAME. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/17/09. 4/20/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
124 CORRECTED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL against F.H., THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN, MARGARET PARRY, F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER, EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY), BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KAREN S. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSSI(INDIVIDUALLY), KAREN J. BOARDMAN(INDIVIDUALLY), DIANE M. HOLBEN(INDIVIDUALLY), RITA D. PEREZ(INDIVIDUALLY), RALPH A. DAUBERT(INDIVIDUALLY), RALPH S. TODD(INDIVIDUALLY), DEBORAH HARTMAN(INDIVIDUALLY), LOURDES SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN(INDIVIDUALLY), AMY ENRIGHT(INDIVIDUALLY), LORI FRIEBOLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), CATHERINE BUCKS(INDIVIDUALLY), JENNA HEILAND(INDIVIDUALLY), KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.(ky, ) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV. (ky, ) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
125 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL BE PERMITTED UNTIL MONDAY APRIL 27, 2009 TO FILE A RESPONSE TO LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES' MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA, WHICH IS PRESENTLY PENDING IN THE WITHIN ACTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/22/09. 4/24/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED.(ky, ) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
126 PLAINTIFFS JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV'S RESPONSE TO LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; EXHIBIT A; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (ky, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
127 ANSWER to 124 Amended Complaint by LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of service.(STEVENS, HOWARD) Modified on 5/4/2009 (nd). (Entered: 05/01/2009)
128 ANSWER to Complaint (Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint) by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
129 NOTICE of RULE 16 CONFERENCE: RULE 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR 6/18/2009 AT 10:30 AM IN Reading BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN.(mls, ) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
130 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ORAL MOTION IS GRANTED PENDING A REVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 25 of 42

06/18/2009 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009
07/01/2009

UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, THE PROVISIONS IN THE APRIL 14, 2008 STIPULATIONS AND ORDER FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS (DOC. NO. 92), AND RULE 5.1.5(a)(2) OF THE LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE SHALL BE PLACED UNDER SEAL FOR A PERIOD OF TEN (10) DAYS. ETC. AS HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 6/18/09. 6/18/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
131 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (INTERVENOR COMPLAINT ATTACHED) (FILED UNDER SEAL)(td) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before the HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN re: A Rule 16 Conference was held on 6/18/09 and was placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
133 NOTICE of Appearance by ANNETTA FOSTER GIVHAN on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA with Certificate of Service(GIVHAN, ANNETTA) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
134 Brief in Opposition to the United States' Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. Certificate of Service.(FILED UNDER SEAL). (ah) PLEADING UNSEALED PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 6/30/09. Modified on 7/7/2009 (td). Modified on 7/15/2009 (ah). (Entered: 06/29/2009)
135 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ORAL JUNE 18, 2009 MOTION TO SEAL THE UNITED STATES' JUNE 18, 2009 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1.5(a)(2) OF THE LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. HAVING FOUND GOOD CAUSE, DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER THE UNITED STATES TO REDACT PARAGRAPH 10 OF IT'S PROPOSED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. HOWEVER, DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO SEAL IS DENIED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT REQUESTS THE WHOLESALE SEALING OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND PROPOSED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION, AS WELL AS DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S JUNE 29, 2009 RESPONSE. ETC. HAS HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 6/30/09. 6/30/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
136 ORDER THAT COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES BY THEMSELVES. DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND PRE−TRIAL MOTIONS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT. (DOC. NO. 109), ETC. DEFENDANTS SHALL AMEND THEIR PLEADINGS OR JOIN PARTIES ON OR BEFORE APRIL 30, 2010, ETC. ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY MARCH 31, 2010. THIS DEADLINE IS MANDATORY, ETC. JURY SELECTION WILL COMMENCE ON THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011, AT 9:30 A.M. AT THE U.S. COURTHOUSE, 601 MARKET STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106. THE TRIAL WILL BEGIN ON MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011, AT 9:30 A.M. AT READING STATION, THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET, ROOM 401, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19601. ALL COUNSEL ARE ATTACHED TO APPEAR FOR TRIAL. PRETRIAL MEMORANDA. NO LATER THAN JANUARY 28, 2011, ALL PARTIES SHALL PREPARE AND FILE WITH THE CLERK OF COURT, WITH TWO COPIES TO THE COURT, ETC. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TWO COPIES SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE COURT NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 18, 2011, ETC. NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 25, 2011, THE PARTIES SHALL FILE IN WRITING WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES AND PROPOSED VERDICT FORMS, OR SPECIAL

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 26 of 42

07/01/2009 07/10/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009 07/13/2009 07/27/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009

INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY, ETC. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON MARCH 9, 2011 AT 9:30 A.M. AT READING STATION, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 6/30/09. 7/1/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
137 MOTION to Intervene Renewed filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum of Law, # 3 Redacted Complaint in Intervention, # 4 Certificate of Service)(BROWN, ALLISON) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
138 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION RE: THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THIS ACTION WHICH WAS FILED JUNE 18, 2009. THE UNITED STATES IS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT PURSUANT TO RULE 24(a)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL BE DOCKETED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 7/8/09. 7/10/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
139 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OPPOSITION THERETO, THE UNITED STATES' MOTION IS HEREBY GRANTED. THE UNITED STATES SHALL FILE THE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AGAINST DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTACHED TO ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, ETC. DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE UNITED STATES' COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 7/8/09. 7/10/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED. (ky, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
140 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(ky, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
141 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD ON 7/28/09 AT 11:00 A.M. ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA, BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT ON 7/13/09. 7/13/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
142 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF BY COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES,EXHIBITS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(ky, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/27/2009: # 1 reply brief) (ky, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/27/2009: # 2 Certificate of Service) (ky, ). Modified on 7/30/2009 (afm, ). (FILED UNDER SEAL PER ORDER #149) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2009: # 3 SEALED) (afm, ). (Entered: 07/27/2009)
143 JOINT MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 37 FILED BY DEFTS, MEMORANDUM (FILED UNDER SEAL). (er, ) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
144 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT re: An In Person Discovery Hearing was held on 7/28/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) Modified on 7/31/2009 (ky, ). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
145 SUMMONS Returned Executed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV re: David M. Ditze served Summons and Complaint upon F.H. FATHER by left copy thereof at the defendant's dwelling house with a person of suitable age and discretion. F.H. FATHER served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009. (PFEIFFER, JAMES) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2009: # 1 SEALED) (afm, ). Modified on 7/30/2009 (afm, ).(FILED UNDER SEAL PER ORDER #149) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
146 SUMMONS Returned Executed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV re: David M. Ditze served Summons and Complaint upon F.H.

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 27 of 42

07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/29/2009
07/29/2009 08/05/2009 08/11/2009 08/13/2009
08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/20/2009 08/20/2009
08/31/2009 09/01/2009

MOTHER by personal. F.H. MOTHER served on 7/8/2009, answer due 7/28/2009. (PFEIFFER, JAMES) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2009: # 1 SEALED) (afm, ). Modified on 7/30/2009 (afm, ).(FILED UNDER SEAL PER ORDER #149) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
147 ANSWER to 140 Intervenor Complaint by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (Attachments: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
148 Praecipe to Issue Summons to F.H. Minor by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV. (PFEIFFER, JAMES) Modified on 7/30/2009 (nd). (Entered: 07/29/2009)
149 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURTS IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PLACE UNDER SEAL THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: DOCKET NOS. 142, 145, AND 146. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT ON 7/29/09. 7/29/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
Alias Summons Issued as to F.H. (minor). (mbh, ) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
150 ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendants' Brief in Support of Joint Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure of Discovery. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
151 UNITED STATES' Response to Defendants' Joint Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure of Discovery Pursuant to FRCP 37. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
152 NOTICE THAT IT IS ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 8/19/2009 AT 10:00 A.M. BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 8/13/09. 8/13/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
153 Praecipe to Issue Alias Summons by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV. (PFEIFFER, JAMES) Modified on 8/18/2009 (nd). (Entered: 08/18/2009)
154 MOTION to Compel Non−Parties to Comply with Plaintiffs' Subpoenas Requiring the Production of Documents Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(B) filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, BRIEF. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(la, ) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
Alias Summons Issued as to F.H. Minor. (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
155 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN: Telephone Conference held on 8/19/09 (la, ) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
156 ORDER THAT DISCOVERY IN THIS MATTER IS STAYED PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT'S CONCERN THAT DEFENDANT'S INTERESTS ARE NOT CURRENT LY REPRESENTED IN THIS CIVIL ACTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL ADVISE THE COURT WITHIN 1 WEEK OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THIS CIVIL ACTION AGAINST MINOR F.H. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 8/20/2009. 8/21/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
157 PRAECIPE FOR LIMITED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE NON−PARTY KIDSPEACE INC. by KELLY RUSH SULLIVAN with CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(la, ) (la, ). (Entered: 08/31/2009)
158 VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS filed by VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC..BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(la, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL)Modified on 2/18/2010 (mbh, ). (Entered: 09/02/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 28 of 42

09/17/2009 10/09/2009 10/13/2009 10/13/2009 10/16/2009 10/19/2009
10/30/2009
11/03/2009
11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/09/2009

159 AFFIDAVIT of Service by JAMES PFEIFFER SR. re: served SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT upon F.H., A MINOR, C/O DONALD CUMMINGHAM, HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PLATT, P.J., AND ELIZABETH FRITZ by PERSONAL on 8/17/2009 AND 8/28/2009. FILED UNDER SEAL. (la, ) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
162 MOTION TO STRIKE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS ON BEHALF OF THE HON. WILLIAM H. PLATT. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
160 ENTRY of Appearance by THOMAS M. CAFFREY on behalf of DONALD CUNNINGHAM, ELIZABETH FRITZ (la, ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
161 DONALD CUNNINGHAM AND ELIZABETH FRITZ' RULE 12(b)(5) MOTION TO STRIKE SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.MEMORANDUM. (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM, # 2 EXHIBIT A, # 3 EXHIBIT B, # 4 EXHIBIT C)(la, ) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
163 Entry of Appearance by MICHAEL DALEY on behalf of HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PLATT, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
164 ORDER THAT WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS, PLAINTIFFS WILL SUBMIT A BRIEF, NOT TOEXCEED TEN (10) PAGES, ADDRESSING WHETHER SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE MINOR DEFENDANT F.H. HAS BEEN LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. THE BRIEF WILL ALSO EXPLAIN, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 3, 2009 (DOCUMENT NO. 117). SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/16/09. 10/19/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(er, ) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
165 ORDER THAT MARC S. FISHER, ESQUIRE IS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE MINOR DEFENDANT, F.H., IN THIS MATTER, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 17(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT, 28 U.S.C. : 1651(a), TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE COURT DIRECTS PLAINTIFFS TO POST $8,000 WITH THE COURT FOR SUPPORT OF THE MINOR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY WITHIN TEN(10) DAYS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ATTORNEY FISHER SHALL SUBMIT ALL INVOICES IN THIS CASE TO THE COURT FOR ITS REVIEW. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THIS ORDER, DEFENDANT F.H. WILL SERVE AN ANSWER OR OTHER PLEADING RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/29/09. 10/30/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(la, ) Modified on 9/27/2010 (afm, ). (VACATED PER ORDER #183) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
166 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE A COPY OF THEIR LETTER BRIEF AND AFFIDAVIT UNDER SEAL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING THE RECORD, PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL THE PROOFS OF SERVICE REGARDING THE MINOR DEFENDANT F.H. DATING FROM OCTOBER 2006. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 10/30/09. 11/3/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(la, ) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
Summons Issued as to THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. Forwarded To: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on 11/4/2009 (as of 7/10/09)(mbh, ). (Entered: 11/04/2009)
167 NOTICE of TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/6/2009 10:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. COURT DIRECTS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO INITIATE THE CALL TO ALL PARTIES AND TO CHAMBERS (610−320−5097).(mls, ) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
169 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for Reconsideration TO ALTER OR AMEND THE OCTOBER 30, 2009 ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(e) AND F.R.A.P. 5(a) filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 29 of 42

11/10/2009 11/16/2009 11/18/2009 11/24/2009 11/25/2009
12/10/2009 12/14/2009 03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/29/2010 03/30/2010 04/06/2010 08/05/2010
08/12/2010

IV.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE OCTOBER 30, 2009 ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(e) AND F.R.A.P. 5(a)(la, ) (***FILED UNDER SEAL***) Modified on 8/9/2010 (nds). (Entered: 11/10/2009)
168 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN: Status Conference held on 11/6/09. (la, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
170 RESPONSE to Motion re 169 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by MARGARET PARRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (er, ) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
171 Defendant ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, Proposed Order and Certificate of Service. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
172 AFFIDAVIT of Service (FILED UNDER SEAL) (la, ) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
173 ORDER THAT THE COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S OCTOBER 30, 2009 ORDER ON DECEMBER 11, 2009 AT 10:30 A.M. BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/24/09. 11/25/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(la, ) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
174 REVISED NOTICE of Hearing: ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED FOR 12/11/2009 AT 10:30 AM IS CHANGED TO 09:00 AM ON THE SAME DATE IN Reading BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN.(tl, ) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN: Oral Argument held on 12/11/09 re: MOTION for Reconsideration filed by JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV (la, ) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
176 ORDER THAT THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORER IS VACATED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/25/10. 3/26/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(la, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
177 ORDER THAT TH MOTION TO QUASH FILED BY COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES IS DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW WHEN DISCOVERY RESUMES. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BROUGHT BY COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARE DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW WITH DISCOVERY RESUMES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/25/10.3/26/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(la, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
178 Letter from Charles Bruno addressed to Judge Golden (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
179 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS M. CAFFREY on behalf of COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES (CAFFREY, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
180 Withdrawal of Appearance ELIZABETH KELLY filed by COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(KELLY, ELIZABETH) Modified on 4/7/2010 (nd, ). (Entered: 04/06/2010)
181 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF THE LATE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY MICHAEL E. KUNZ ON 8/5/2010. 8/5/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(kp, ) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
182 Transcript of Hearing held on 12/11/09 before Judge Thomas M. Golden. ESR/Court Reporter: Paula L. Curran. (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 30 of 42

09/23/2010 09/23/2010 10/08/2010
10/08/2010 10/14/2010
10/15/2010 10/18/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010
12/09/2010 12/09/2010 01/18/2011 01/18/2011

183 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGE GOLDEN'S OCTOBER 29, 2009 ORDER IS VACATED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/10/10. 9/24/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
184 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 10/7/10 AT 2:00 PM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/23/10. 9/24/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
185 SCHEDULING ORDER: TRIAL SHALL BE HELD ON 12/6/11 AT 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM 6B. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/29/11 AT 10:00 AM. ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 4/28/11. ANY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED BY 10/18/11. PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 11/11/11. DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 11/11/11. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 11/11/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/8/10. 10/12/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/29/11 10:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND. (mbh, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
186 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: A TRIAL SHALL BE HELD ON 1/17/12 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM 6B. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 1/11/12 AT 10:00 AM. ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 4/28/11. ANY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 10/28/11. PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 12/15/11. DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 12/15/11. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED BY 12/15/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/14/10. 10/15/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
187 NOTICE of Hearing:SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/9/2010 AT 1:30 P.M., IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE. NOTICE FAXED TO COUNSEL ON 10/15/2010.(cms) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
***Set/Reset Deadlines: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE BY 10/28/2011. (afm, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
188 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by F.H..Motion for Order of Appointment as Counsel for Minor Defendant with Order and Certificate of Service.(MCCONNELL, SEAN) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
189 ORDER THAT STEPHEN D. BROWN AND SEAN P. McCONNELL ARE APPOINTED COUNSEL ON PRO BONO BASIS FOR MINOR DEFENDANT F.H. IN THIS CASE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT MARC FISHER, F.H.'S FORMER COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS MATTER AND IN HIS POSSESSION TO MESSRS BROWN AND McCONNELL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/10/10. 11/10/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
190 NOTICE of Appearance by SEAN PATRICK MCCONNELL on behalf of F.H. with Certificate of Service(MCCONNELL, SEAN) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
191 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 12/8/10 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
192 NOTICE of Appearance by TAMAR S. WISE on behalf of F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER with Certificate of Service(WISE, TAMAR) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
193 NOTICE of Appearance by PHILIP G. KIRCHER on behalf of F.H. FATHER, F.H. MOTHER with Certificate of Service(KIRCHER, PHILIP) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 31 of 42

02/11/2011
02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011
02/15/2011 02/23/2011
03/04/2011 03/04/2011
03/08/2011 03/11/2011 03/17/2011
03/17/2011

194 ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITIONS OF DOE IV AND HIS PARENTS SHALL BE TAKEN NO LATER THAN 2/18/11. IF SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY CREATES A NEED TO REDOPOSE ANY WITNESS, I WILL ADDRESS THE PERMISSIBILITY OF SUCH REDEPOSITION AT THAT TIME. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/11/11. 2/11/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
195 Letter from JOHN E. FREUND, III, ESQ. to JUDGE DIAMOND dated 2/10/11 re: request for telephone conference to discuss deposition scheduling and cancellations. (md) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
196 Letter from JAMES L. PFEIFFER, ESQ. to JUDGE DIAMOND dated 2/11/11 re: request for conference to discuss discovery dispute. (md) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
197 Letter from BLAKE W. RUSH, ESQ. to JUDGE DIAMOND dated 2/14/11 re: request for Court to reconsider order as to deposition. (md) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
198 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE IV'S LETTER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MY 2/11/11 ORDER IS DENIED, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, AS I HAVE ORDERED, THOSE DEPOSITIONS WILL BE TAKEN NO LATER THAN 2/18/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/14/2011. 2/14/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(md) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
199 Letter from Howard S. Stevens, Esq. and Glenn Guanowski, Esq. dated 2/14/11 addressed to Judge Diamond re: depositions. (mbh, ) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
200 (FILED UNDER SEAL) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON−PARTIES TO COMPLY WIHT PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENAS REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(B) AND OTHER RELIEF filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL.(lbs, ) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
201 (FILED UNDER SEAL) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL NON−PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(B) AND OTHER RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
202 ORDER THAT THE LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES, LEHIGH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, LEHIGH COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS−CRIMINAL RECORDS, KIDSPEACE, INC., VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE, INC. AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL NO LATER THAN 3/18/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/4/11. 3/4/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
203 (FILED UNDER SEAL) SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON−PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENAS REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(B) AND OTHER RELIEF by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
204 Notice of Appearance by AMANDA DOWNS FRIZZELLE on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
205 (FILED UNDER SEAL) VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC.'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PROPOSED ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC.. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
206 ORDER THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS SET FOR 3/24/11 AT 2:00 PM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/17/11. 3/17/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 03/17/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 32 of 42

03/18/2011
03/18/2011 03/18/2011 03/18/2011 03/23/2011
03/25/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 04/05/2011 04/07/2011 04/25/2011 04/29/2011 05/12/2011 05/12/2011

207 (FILED UNDER SEAL) KIDSPEACE INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON−PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 45(c)(2)(B); BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ky, ) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
208 (FILED UNDER SEAL) APPENDIX TO VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE INC.'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL. (ky, ) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
209 SEALED RESPONSE to Motion filed by COUNTY OF LEHIGH OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mas, ) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
210 DEFENDANT F.H.'s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
211 ORDER THAT THE 3/24/11 HEARING SHALL BE POSTPONED AND COMBINED WITH AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL. THE PARTIES AND NON−PARTIES SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ON BOTH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REQUESTS AND THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ON 4/15/2011 AT 2:00 PM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/23/11. 3/23/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
212 DEFENDANTS F.H. MOTHER and F.H. FATHER's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
213 NOTICE of Appearance by NICHOLAS ULYSSES MURPHY, II on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA with Certificate of Service(MURPHY, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
214 ORDER THAT THE 4/15/11 EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS RESCHEDULED TO 4/28/11 AT 2:00 PM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/28/11. 3/29/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
215 Letter addressed to Judge Diamond from Stephen D. Brown, Esquire re: request for continuance of Motion Hearing scheduled for 4/15/11 (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
216 NOTICE of Appearance by ELLEN C. SCHURDAK on behalf of ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT with certificate of service (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(SCHURDAK, ELLEN) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
217 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR A 30 DAYS EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE APRIL 28TH HEARING. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 4/7/11. 4/7/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
218 ORDER THAT THE APRIL 28, 2011 EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS RESCHEDULED FROM 2:00 PM TO 10:30 AM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 4/25/11. 4/25/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
219 Minute Entry for Status Conference for 4/28/11 before Judge Diamond. ESR/Court Reporter: Lenora Kashner−Wittje. (mbh, ) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
220 STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED UNDER SEAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/12/11. 5/12/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED(mbh, ). (Entered: 05/12/2011)
221 ORDER THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR UNITED STATES AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS HAVE A COMMON INTEREST RESPECTING THIS CASE GIVING RISE TO A COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE WHICH INCLUDING ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR UNITED STATES AND COUNSEL FOR PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/12/11. 5/12/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/12/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 33 of 42

05/12/2011 05/31/2011 06/02/2011 06/17/2011 06/22/2011
07/13/2011
07/13/2011 07/14/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 08/03/2011

222 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/12/11. 5/12/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) Modified on 5/13/2011 (afm, ). (Entered: 05/12/2011)
223 MOTION to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.Certificate of Service.(GIVHAN, ANNETTA) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
224 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART. FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 6/17/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/2/11. 6/2/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
225 ORDER THAT FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 7/8/11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT KIDSPEACE, INC. SHALL PRODUCE FORTHWITH THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE 5/12/11 STIPULATION AND ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/17/11. 6/17/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
226 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 8/22/11 AN 9/7/11. DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 9/8/11 AND 9/26/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/21/11. 6/22/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
227 ORDER THAT I WILL NOT REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS. IF IT WISHES, THE UNITED STATES MAY PROPOUND A LIMITED NUMBER OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 7/14/11. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON 7/18/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/13/11. 7/13/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
228 PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV'S MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF AN ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFF AND LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(ky, ) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
229 ORDER THAT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 7/20/2011. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/13/11. 7/15/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Main Document 229 replaced on 7/15/2011) (mbh, ). (Entered: 07/15/2011)
230 RESPONSE in Opposition re 228 MOTION for Joinder and motion to amend by Plaintiffs filed by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
231 RESPONSE to Motion re 228 MOTION for Joinder filed by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS SOCIAL WORKER), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., MARGARET PARRY. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Memorandum in Opposition)(STEVENS, HOWARD) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
232 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF AN ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFF AND LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART. PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT SHALL BE DEEMED FILED AS OF TODAY. I WILL GRANT ONLY A MODEST EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY. THE PARTIES ARE TO SUBMIT TO ME BY NOON ON 8/5/11 A PROPOED CAE MANAGEMENT ORDER WITH REVISED DATES THAT INCLUDE A MODEST EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY AND THE OTHER DUE DATES IN THIS MATTER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/2/11. 8/3/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) . (Entered: 08/03/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 34 of 42

08/03/2011
08/10/2011
08/17/2011 08/22/2011 11/14/2011 12/02/2011 12/06/2011 12/07/2011 12/14/2011 12/23/2011 12/27/2011 01/12/2012 01/17/2012

233 Third Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN (a/k/a "Allentown School District"), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., EVA W. HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, DR. KAREN. ANGELLO, EVELYN W. ROSI, KAREN S. BROADMAN, DIANE M. HOLBEN, RITA D. PEREZ, RALPH A. DAUBERT, RALPH S. TODD, DEBORAH HARTMAN, DR. LOURDE SANCHEZ, GERALD BROWN, AMY ENRIGHT, LORI FRIEBOLIN, KIM CECCATTI, CATHERINE BUCKS, JENNA HEILAND, PEG PERRY, KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, F.H., a minor, through his parents and natural guardians, F.H. MOTHER, individually and F.H. FATHER, Individually filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV and JOHN DOE V.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
234 SECOND (FINAL) AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: A TRIAL FOR THIS CASE SHALL BE HELD ON 3/20/12 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM 6B. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 3/14/12 AT 10:00 AM. PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT DISCOVERY SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 11/28/11 AND 12/9/11. DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DISCOVERY SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 12/12/11 AND 12/23/11. ANY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 1/16/12. PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM SHALL BE FILE ON 2/27/12. DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM SHALL BE FED ON 2/27/12. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 2/27/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/10/11. 8/11/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
235 ANSWER to 233 Amended Complaint,, by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
236 ANSWER to 233 Amended Complaint,, Plaintiffs' Third, by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., MARGARET PARRY with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(STEVENS, HOWARD) Modified on 8/23/2011 (nd, ). (Entered: 08/22/2011)
237 NOTICE of Appearance by MELISSA JULIA MICHAUD on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Withdrawal of Appearance of AMANDA DOWNS FRIZZELLE with Certificate of Service(MICHAUD, MELISSA) Modified on 11/15/2011 (nd, ). (Entered: 11/14/2011)
238 STIPULATION of Dismissal by KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN(INDIVIDUALLY), LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., MARGARET PARRY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(STEVENS, HOWARD) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
239 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/21/2011 01:30 PM IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(km, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
240 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/21/11 IS RESCHEDULED TO 12/22/2011 02:00 PM IN JUDGE CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(km, ) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
241 STIPULATION of Dismissal by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
242 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 12/22/11 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
243 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE: Settlement Conference via Telephone held on 12/27/2011. (tomg, ) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
244 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT STATUS CONFERENCE VIA TELEPHONE SET FOR 1/17/2012 09:00 AM BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE. CHAMBERS WILL INITIATE THE CALL.(km, ) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
245 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE ASD DEFENDANTS SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN; DR. EVA HADDON;

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 35 of 42

01/18/2012 01/20/2012 01/24/2012 01/26/2012 01/26/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/03/2012
02/03/2012 02/08/2012 02/09/2012 02/09/2012
02/17/2012 02/17/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012

BRADLEY CARTER AND KIM CECCATTI, BRIEF IN SUPPORT, EXHIBITS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (FILED UNDER SEAL).(ky, ) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
246 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 1/18/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
247 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., MARGARET PARRY, AND KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 1/19/12. 1/20/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
248 Minute Entry for Status Settlement Conference held on 1/23/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
249 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 2/1/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 1/26/12. 1/27/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
250 Letter from James L. Pfieffer addressed to Judge Diamond dated 1/26/12 requesting an extension of time until 2/1/12 to file a response to defendants' summary judgment motion. (mbh, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
251 Letter from JAMES PFEIFFER TO JUDGE DIAMOND RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
252 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 2/2/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/1/12. 2/2/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
253 (FILED UNDER SEAL) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. EVA HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER, AND KIM CECCATTI filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JUNIOR DOE, DONALD NOE, JUNIOR ROE. (lbs, ) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
254 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT.certificate of service, brief. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 certificate of service, # 3 brief in support)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
255 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument filed by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN.certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 255 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. REPLIES DUE BY 2/17/2012. (mbh, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
256 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS MAY FILE A REPLY BRIEF BY 2/17/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/9/12. 2/9/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
257 REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (FILED UNDER SEAL). (er, ) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
258 RESPONSE in Opposition re 254 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Opposition to Motion)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
259 Witness List by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. certificate of service (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
260 Exhibit List for trial by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 CERTIFICATE

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 36 of 42

02/21/2012 02/23/2012 02/24/2012 02/27/2012 02/27/2012 02/29/2012
03/02/2012
03/02/2012
03/02/2012 03/02/2012 03/02/2012 03/02/2012

OF SERVICE)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
261 MOTION for Leave to File Response filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(MICHAUD, MELISSA) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
262 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine and Trial Materials filed by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN.certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 certificate of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
263 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Submission filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
264 ORDER THAT THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DISTRICT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/24/12. 2/27/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
265 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND TRIAL MATERIALS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL 3/2/12 TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/24/12. 2/27/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
266 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE A SUR−REPLY SUBMISSION IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO THE ASD DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND PLAINTIFFS MAY FILE A SUR−REPLY SUBMISSION BY 3/5/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 2/28/12. 2/29/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
267 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. DRAGAN, ED.D AND TO PRECLUDE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND CORRESPONDING TESTIMONY WITH PROPOSED ORDER AND EXHIBITS filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
268 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE RECORDS AND TESTIMONEY RELATING TO SERVICES PROVIDED TO.H. AND HIS FAMILY BY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND FROM VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
269 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY AND ALL WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING THAT F.H. EJACULATED ON D.N. AND/OR ON N.J. filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
270 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE MENTION, ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE THAT ANY MINOR PLAINTIFF WAS "RAPED" filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
271 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DR. VALLIERE'S REPORT AND/OR ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
272 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF SUSAN STRAUSS, ED.D. filed by ALLENTOWN

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 37 of 42

03/02/2012
03/02/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/13/2012
03/13/2012 03/13/2012
03/14/2012 03/14/2012 03/21/2012

SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY)..(lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
273 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** GLOBAL BRIEF FILED BY DEFENDANTS' ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. EVA HADDON, BRADLEY CARTER AND KIM CECCATTI'S IN SUPPORT OF SIX (6) MOTIONS IN LIMINES, ETC filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY). (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
274 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
275 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** PLAINTIFFS' SUR−REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
276 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** EXHIBITS 82−85. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
277 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY). (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
278 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** DEFENDANTS' JURY INSTRUCTIONS. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
279 *** FILED UNDER SEAL *** PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR VOIR DIRE OF ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS by BRADLEY CARTER(INDIVIDUALLY), KIM CECCATTI(INDIVIDUALLY), EVA W. HADDON(INDIVIDUALLY), THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (lbs, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
280 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS GRANTED AND THE LAWSUIT FILED BY JOHN DOE PLAINTIFFS I−V IS SEVERED FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FROM THE LAWSUIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/12/12. 3/13/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
281 Minute Entry for a Status Telephone Conference held on 3/13/12 before Judge Diamond. ESR/Court Reporter: Lenora Kashner−Wittje. (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
282 SCHEDULING ORDER: A TRIAL SHALL BE HELD ON 7/17/12 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM 6B. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEUDLED FOR 7/11/12 AT 10:00 AM. THIS MATTER IS REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON OR BEFORE 4/18/12. PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 5/21/12. DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED ON 5/21/12. ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 5/21/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/13/12. 3/14/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
283 NOTICE of Hearing:SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 4/18/2012 AT 9:30 A.M., IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE. NOTICE FAXED TO COUNSEL ON 3/14/12.(cms) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
284 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC NOS. 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 AND 272) ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/13/12. 3/15/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
285 ORDER THAT M.D.'S REQUEST IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/21/12. 3/22/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 38 of 42

03/21/2012 03/23/2012 03/26/2012 03/27/2012 03/30/2012
03/30/2012
04/19/2012 04/19/2012 04/20/2012 04/27/2012
05/08/2012 05/16/2012 05/17/2012
05/21/2012 05/22/2012 05/23/2012

286 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/21/12. 3/22/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
287 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 3/21/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
288 Minute Entry for a Settlement Status Conference held on 3/26/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
289 Minute Entry for a Settlement Status Conference held on 3/27/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
290 ADDENDUM AND ORDER TO THE 5/12/2011 STIPULATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/29/2012. 3/30/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(jmf, ) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
291 AGREEMENT AND ORDER BETWEEN INTERVENOR, THE UNITED STATES F AMERICA, AND COUNSEL FOR F.H. REGARDING ADDENDUM TO THE 5/12/2011 STIPULATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 3/29/2012. 3/30/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(jmf, ) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
292 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 5/10/2012 AT 2:30 P.M., IN COURTROOM 3G BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE. NOTICE FAXED TO COUNSEL ON 4/19/12.(cms) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
293 Minute Entry for Settlement Status Conference held on 4/17/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
294 Minute Entry for Settlement Status Conference held on 4/19/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
295 ORDER THAT AN INSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE(S) FROM SCHOOL CLAIMS SURVEY &/OR ACE SHALL ATTEND THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON 5/10/2012 IN PERSON WITH SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY OF AT LEAST $700,000. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE ON 4/27/12. 4/30/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(kw, ) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
296 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED TO 5/21/2012 AT 9:30 A.M., IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE. (cms) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
297 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine and Pretrial Memorandum filed by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN.certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 certificate of service)(FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
298 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND PRETRIAL MEMORANDA IS GRANTED IN PART. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE ALL MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND PRETRIAL MEMORANDA NO LATER THAN 6/4/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/16/12. 5/18/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE: Settlement Conference held on 5/10/12. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
300 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 5/21/12 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
301 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine and Responses Thereto filed by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 39 of 42

05/30/2012 06/04/2012 06/04/2012
06/04/2012 06/04/2012 06/07/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012

Service)(RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
302 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE IS GRANTED IN PART. ALL RESPONSES SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 6/15/12. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/30/12. 5/31/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
303 FILED UNDER SEAL − PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (lbs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
304 FILED UNDER SEAL − 1. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. DRAGAN, ED.D. AND TO PRECLUDE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND CORRESPONDING TESTIMONY FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 2. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE RECORDS AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO SERVICES PROVIDED TO F.H. AND HIS FAMILY BY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICE AND FROM VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 3. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY AND ALL WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING THAT F.H. EJACULATED ON D.N. AND/OR N.J. FILED BY DEFENDANT ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 4. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE MENTION, ARGUMENT, OR EVIDENCE THAT ANY MINOR PLAINTIFF WAS "RAPED" FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 5. MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF DR. VALLIERE'S REPORT AND/OR ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 6. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF SUSAN STRAUSS, ED.D., FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; 7. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE AND AND ALL REFERENCES AND/OR TESTIMONY TO N.C. filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT..(lbs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
305 FILED UNDER SEAL − GLOBAL BRIEF FILED BY DEFENDANT, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SUPPORT OF SEVEN (7) MOTIONS IN LIMINE by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. (lbs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
306 FILED UNDER SEAL − CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT (lbs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
307 FILED UNDER SEAL − PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDA PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16.1(c) by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV. (lbs, ) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
308 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTOIN IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY AND ALL WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING THAT F.H. EJACULATED ON D.N. AND/OR N.J. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
309 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENDTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE MENTION, ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE THAT ANY INOR PLAINTIFF WAS "RAPED" (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
310 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY AND ALL REFERENCES AND/OR TESTIMONY TO N.C. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
311 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRELCUDE RECORDS AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO SERVICES PROVIDED TO F.H. AND HIS FAMILY BY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND FROM VALLEY YOUTH HOUSE. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
312 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTOIN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DR. VALLIERE'S REPORT AND/OR ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 40 of 42

06/18/2012
06/18/2012 06/18/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 07/12/2012 07/16/2012
07/30/2012
07/30/2012
10/19/2012 11/14/2012 11/15/2012 01/22/2013 02/05/2013 03/15/2013 03/27/2013
04/22/2013

313 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. DRAGAN ED.d AND PRECLUDE THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND CORRESPONDING TESTIMONY. (FILED UNDER SEAL)`(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
314 PLAINTIFFS' GLOBAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
315 APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
316 Proposed Jury Instructions by THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (FREUND, JOHN) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
317 Proposed Jury Instructions by JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, JOHN DOE V. (RUSH, BLAKE) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
318 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND: Final Pretrial Conference held on 7/11/2012 (ems) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
319 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/16/12. 7/16/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(cj, ) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
320 Joint MOTION for Approval of Proposed Consent Decree filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.Proposed Consent Decree. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(MICHAUD, MELISSA) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
321 ORDER THAT THE CONSENT DECREE BE ENTERED AND ITS TERMS IMPLEMENTED. THE COURT SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER THIS ACTION DURING THE TEM OF THE CONSENT DECREE. THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT EACH SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED IN THIS ACTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/30/12. 7/31/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
322 Petition for Leave to Compromise a Minors' Action with Affidavits. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
323 Letter addressed to Judge Diamond from James L. Pfeiffer dated 11/12/12 re: certain facts. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (mbh, ) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
324 ORDER FILED UNDER SEAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 11/14/12. 11/16/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
325 Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held on 1/22/13 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
326 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 3/21/2013 AT 9:30 A.M., IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(cms) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
327 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE RESET FOR 4/19/2013 AT 9:30 A.M., IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(cms) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
328 Four Affidavits of Deposit of Minor's Funds, One Certification of Compliance with Order Directing Deposit of Minor's Funds, Four Certification of Parents/Guardians/Legal Custodians Regarding Court Established Restrictd Bank Account for Minor Executed by Jesse Johnson and Juliette Forbes, Gloria Negron, Jessica Rivera nd Dorothy Blue. (FILED UNDER SEAL − SEALED ENVELOPE)(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
329 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 4/19/13 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 41 of 42

07/12/2013 01/23/2015 06/17/2015 06/23/2015 06/29/2015 07/01/2015 07/06/2015 07/07/2015
07/15/2015 07/28/2015
08/17/2015
08/17/2015 03/24/2016 04/13/2016

330 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Withdrawal and Appearance, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (MICHAUD, MELISSA) Modified on 7/15/2013 (ke, ). (Entered: 07/12/2013)
331 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of Appearances by James A. Eichner and Renee M. Wohlenhaus and Withdrawals by Allison R. Brown, Kathleen S. Devine and Nicholas Ulysses Murphy, II (GIVHAN, ANNETTA) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
332 NOTICE of Appearance by MICHAEL S. MACKO on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA with Certificate of Service(MACKO, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
333 MOTION to Extend the Consent Decree filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A part 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A part 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B and C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits D, E and F, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits G to L)(EICHNER, JAMES) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
334 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER IS REFERRED TO JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 6/26/15. 6/29/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
335 Letter from James A. Eichner to Judge Paul S. Diamond dated 6/26/15 re: Request for Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice. (gs) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
336 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 7/14/2015 AT 1:30 P.M., IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS (ROOM 3029), BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(cms) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
337 RESPONSE in Opposition re 333 MOTION to Extend the Consent Decree filed by ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Motion, # 2 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service, # 3 Memorandum Memorandum of Law, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits A and B)(KELLY, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
338 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 7/14/15 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
339 ORDER THAT THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED IN THIS ACTION (ECF NO. 321) IS HEREBY EXTENDED UNTIL 7/30/16. THIS EXTENSION IS ORDERED PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE RECORD BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE AND AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AT THE END OF THE 7/14/15 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. THIS EXTENSION RENDERS MOOT THE UNITED STATES' PENDING MOTION TO EXTEND THE CONSENT DECREE AND THEREFORE THAT MOTION IS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/28/15. 7/28/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
340 Transcript of Settlement Hearing held on July 14, 2015 before Judge Timothy R. Rice. Court Reporter/Transcriber Veritext National Court Reporting Company. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/8/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/17/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2015. (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
341 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 340 Transcript − PDF. 7/14/15 Entered and Copies Emailed and Mailed, (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
342 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 5/24/2016 AT 1:30 P.M. IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE.(cms) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
343 Minute Entry for a Settlement Status Conference held on 4/11/16 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/14/2016)

Case: 2:06-cv-1926 As of: 11/06/2017 12:59 AM EST 42 of 42

05/24/2016 08/03/2016 08/03/2016
08/03/2016 08/17/2016
01/13/2017

344 Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 5/24/16 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
345 Letter from James A. Eichner, Esq. addressed to Judge Diamond dated 8/1/16. (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
346 ORDER THAT THE TERM OF THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED IN THIS ACTION IS HEREBY EXTENDED UNTIL THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RESOLOVES A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING HOW THE TERMS OF A ONE−YER EXTENSION AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES WILL BE FILED WITH THE COURT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/2/16. 8/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
347 CONSENT AND ORDER TO JURISDICTION BY US MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY RICE TO CONDUCT ALL PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER THE ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/2/16. 8/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
348 ORDER THAT THE CONSENT DECREE ENTERED BY THIS COURT ON 7/30/12 IS EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. ANY DISPUTES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE AND THE PARTIES' UNDERSTANDING OF ITS TERMS DURING THE EXTENSION PERIOD WILL BE RESOLVED BY THIS COURT, FOLLOWING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE, AND UPON THE REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY THROUGH A PUBLIC COURT FILING. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE ON 8/17/16. 8/17/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
349 Minute Entry Settlement Conference held on 1/13/17 before Judge Rice. (mbh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)