Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

HARRY DELANDRO and DEBRA

:

MALOY, individually and on behalf of a :

class of others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,

:

RAMON C. RUSTIN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity :

as Warden of the Allegheny County

:

Jail, EDWARD D. URBAN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity :

as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County :

Jail, GREGORY E. GROGAN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity as :

Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County :

Jail, LANCE E. BOHN, both individually :

and in his official capacity as Deputy

:

Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and :

WILLIAM L. EMERICK, both individually :

and in his capacity as Assistant Deputy :

Warden of the Allegheny County Jail

:

:

Defendants.

:

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Civil No. 2:06-CV-927
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 20
INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiffs and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections has had a uniform practice and procedure of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Allegheny County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this uniform practice and procedure is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and was promulgated by senior Bureau of Corrections officials; specifically, Defendants Ramon C. Rustin, Edward D. Urban, Gregory E. Grogan, Lance E. Bohn, and William L. Emerick. It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or summary violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the uniform practice and procedure of Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Allegheny County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary. Plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Debra Maloy bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. Plaintiffs were charged with non-felony offenses and were subjected to strip searches in violation of their rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 3 of 20
themselves and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Bureau of Corrections’ uniform practices and procedures are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Debra Maloy complain as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Harry Delandro (“Delandro”) is an adult male individual who resides at 4517 Coleridge Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201. On or about April 19, 2006, Delandro was arrested and placed in the Allegheny County Jail on charges of failing to pay child support. 4. Plaintiff Debra Maloy (“Maloy”) is an adult female individual who resides at 1301 Margaret Street, Munhall, PA 15120. On or about February 23, 2006, Maloy was arrested
3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 4 of 20
and placed in the Allegheny County Jail on charges of false reports to a law enforcement officer, driving with a suspended license, and careless driving.
5. Defendant County of Allegheny (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Bureau of Corrections, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Allegheny County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the Allegheny County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Allegheny County Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections (the “Bureau of Corrections”) is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-3100. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Office is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Bureau of Corrections was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Allegheny County Jail (the “Jail”). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the County of Allegheny, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the Jail. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the
4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 5 of 20
County of Allegheny, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
7. Defendant Ramon C. Rustin (“Warden Rustin”) is the duly appointed Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Warden Rustin’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Warden Rustin is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Edward D. Urban (“Deputy Warden Urban”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Urban’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Urban is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Gregory E. Grogan (“Deputy Warden Grogan”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Grogan’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Grogan is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
5

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 6 of 20
10. Defendant Lance E. Bohn (“Deputy Warden Bohn”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Bohn’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Bohn is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant William L. Emerick (“Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick”) is the duly appointed Assistant Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Collectively, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail. 14. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, summary
6

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 7 of 20
offenses, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the County of Allegheny. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 15. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 16. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Jail every month -- all of whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions. 17. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Allegheny County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually. 18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with
7

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 8 of 20
misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
19. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
20. The representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
21. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. In short, Plaintiffs’ counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Allegheny County, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class or between counsel and members of the class.
22. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Jail. In short, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Jail Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
23. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
8

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 9 of 20
24. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
25. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
26. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals.
27. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
9

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 10 of 20
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 28. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 29. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County Correctional Facility and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. 30. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as (“strip searches”). 31. The County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a
10

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 11 of 20
policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the Allegheny Police’s written policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections.
32. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
33. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
34. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Allegheny Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
35. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including the named Plaintiffs, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are
11

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 12 of 20
conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment, Trespassing and Failure to Pay Child Support.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches -- each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff -- has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs 37. Plaintiff Harry Delandro is an adult male. On or about Wednesday, April 19, 2006, at approximately 9:00 pm, he was arrested in his home on non-felony charges for failing to pay child support. 38. At the time of his arrest, Delandro was on crutches and wearing a foot immobilizer. 39. Delandro’s arrest was void of any reasonable suspicion that the harbored any weapons or contraband. 40. Delandro was put in a holding cell for the night. The following morning and before having seen a judge, Delandro was provided with jail issue clothes and strip searched. Delandro was required to remove his underwear and lift his testicles in connection with this search. 41. The next day at approximately 5:00 am, Delandro was taken back to processing so that he could get dressed and then go to Court. 42. Delandro saw a hearing officer that afternoon, who ordered that he be released.
12

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 13 of 20
43. Thereafter, Delandro returned to the Jail, was put in another holding cell, strip searched yet again, and finally released at about 6:00 pm that evening.
44. In connection with the second strip search, Delandro was required to completely disrobe, lift up his testicles, bend over and cough, so that he could be visually inspected by a correctional officer.
45. Delandro was able to observe other individuals being strip searched while he was waiting for his turn to be searched.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to County and Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom, Delandro has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
47. Plaintiff Debra Maloy is a 37 year old female. On or about February 23, 2006, at approximately 9:00 am, Maloy was arrested on non-felony counts of making false reports to a law enforcement officer, driving with a suspended license and careless driving.
48. Maloy was arraigned by a magistrate judge following arrest and, after being denied bail, was taken to the Allegheny County Jail.
49. After being subjected to an initial search, Maloy was taken to a holding cell where she remained for approximately seventeen hours.
50. Maloy was strip searched the following day. 51. During the course of the strip search Maloy was required to completely disrobe, remove a cranial prosthesis she wears as a result of a medical condition, move her breasts, squat, and manipulate her genital areas, so that she could be visually inspected by the guard.
13

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 14 of 20
52. The search was conducted by a female guard but male detainees, as well as another female detainee who was being strip searched next to Maloy, were in view of Maloy’s body during the search.
53. Maloy was released on her own recognizance by a judge six days after her arrest. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to County and Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom, Maloy has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law --
55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 54.
56. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or other minor crimes absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
57. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Jail Officers to strip search Plaintiffs and Class members based on their arrests for minor criminal charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Allegheny County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
14

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 15 of 20
58. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections. As such, the County of Allegheny is directly liable for the damages of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
59. Upon information and belief, Sheriff DeFazio, Chief Deputy Mullen, Warden Rustin, and Deputy Warden Urban are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick are each individually responsible for the damages of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
60. Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick knew that the Jail’s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
61. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 62.
15

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 16 of 20
64. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
65. Plaintiffs and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 65.
67. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
68. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the Plaintiffs.
16

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 17 of 20
69. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
70. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Allegheny County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 71. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy. 72. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Allegheny County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 73. The Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Debra Maloy, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
17

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 18 of 20
1. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 2. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court. 3. A judgment against Defendant Ramon C. Rustin on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. 4. A judgment against Defendant Edward D. Urban on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. 5. A judgment against Defendant Gregory E. Grogan on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. 6. A judgment against Defendant Lance E. Bohn on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. 7. A judgment against Defendant William L. Emerick on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. 8. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper. 9. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband.
18

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 19 of 20

10. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

Respectfully submitted by:

Dated: October 2, 2006

/s/ D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire
Aaron Rihn, Esquire Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 412.281.7229 PA ID. 85752

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire Alexandra Coler, Esquire (Attny. I.D. No. 93651) CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 202.789.3960

Gary E. Mason, Esquire Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.429.2290

Alexander E. Barnett, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, P.C. One Pennsylvania Plaza Suite 4632 New York, NY 10119 212.362.5770

Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70

19

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM-RCM Document 7 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 20 of 20 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518.434.1718 Daniel Levin, Esquire Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman 250 Walnut Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215.592.1500 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND PROPOSED CLASS
20

 
 CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1geof12o0f 20

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

MICHAEL REY, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY; RAMON C. RUSTIN, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of the Allegheny County Jail; EDWARD D. URBAN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail; GREGORY E. GROGAN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail; LANCE E. BOHN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail; and WILLIAM L. EMERICK, both individually and in his capacity as Assistant Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail,
Defendants.
Defendants.

Civil Action No.:

COMPLAINT IN CLASS ACTION INTRODUCTION
This is a Class Action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiff and Proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections has had a policy of strip-

1

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea2geof22o0f 20
searching all individuals who enter the Allegheny County Jail and placing them in jail clothing, regardless of the crime with which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and was promulgated by senior Bureau of Corrections officials; specifically, Defendants Ramon C. Rustin, Edward D. Urban, Gregory E. Grogan, Lance E. Bohn, and William L. Emerick. It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or non-felony violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the policy of Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip-search upon entry into the Allegheny County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary.
Plaintiff Michael Rey brings this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip-searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of his civil rights and those of the Class Members he proposes to represent. Plaintiff was charged with a non-felony offense, and was subjected to a strip-search, in violation of his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for himself, and for each member of the Proposed Class; a declaration that the Bureau of Corrections’ policies are unconstitutional; and an injunction precluding Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Michael Rey complains as follows:
2

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea3geof32o0f 20
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the constitutionality of the policies of a local government.
2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and those of Proposed Class Members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Michael Rey is 44 years old and resides at 333 Annabelle Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15211. On or about February 13, 2006, Plaintiff was arrested and placed in the Allegheny County Jail on charges of failing to pay child support.
4. Defendant County of Allegheny (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-3100. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Bureau of Corrections, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation
3

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea4geof42o0f 20
and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Allegheny County Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the Allegheny County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Allegheny County Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
5. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections (the “Bureau of Corrections”) is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-3100. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Office is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Bureau of Corrections was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Allegheny County Jail (the “Jail”). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the County of Allegheny, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the Jail. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the County of Allegheny, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
4

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea5geof52o0f 20
6. Defendant Ramon C. Rustin (“Warden Rustin”) is the duly appointed Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Warden Rustin’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Warden Rustin is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant Edward D. Urban (“Deputy Warden Urban”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Urban’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Urban is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Gregory E. Grogan (“Deputy Warden Grogan”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Grogan’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Grogan is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Lance E. Bohn (“Deputy Warden Bohn”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control.
5

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea6geof62o0f 20
Deputy Warden Bohn’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Bohn is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant William L. Emerick (“Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick”) is the duly appointed Assistant Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Collectively, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
12. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip-searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail.
13. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows: All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, summary offenses, violations of probation or parole, traffic 6

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea7geof72o0f 20
infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and who were or will be strip-searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the County of Allegheny. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 14. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a Class Action under Federal law, and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements for maintaining a Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 15. The Members of the Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Jail every month -- all of whom are members of the Proposed Class. Upon information and belief, the size of the Proposed Class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions. 16. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of Class Members and the fact that Class Members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Allegheny County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many Members of the Class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually. 17. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants conducting strip-searches absent particularized suspicion. All Members of the Class were charged with
7

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea8geof82o0f 20
misdemeanors or non-felony violations when placed into the custody of the Jail, and all were illegally strip-searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
18. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the Class. Plaintiff and all Members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the Class Members.
19. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the Members of the Class.
20. Plaintiff has retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. In short, Plaintiff’s counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Allegheny County, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among Members of the Class or between counsel and Members of the Class.
21. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all Class Members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip-searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Jail. In short, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Jail Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all Class Members.
8

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea9geof92o0f 20
22. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
23. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual Members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of strip-searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the Class Period.
24. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual Members of the Class is impracticable given the large number of Class Members, and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual Members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a Class Action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Member of the Class.
25. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals.
9

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g0e o1f02o0f 20
26. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally
27. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip-searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband.
28. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip-searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County Correctional Facility and who are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime, and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband.
29. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County
10

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g1e o1f12o0f 20
Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as (“stripsearches”).
30. The County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip-searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the defendants' policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections.
31. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip-searches of all misdemeanor and non-felony violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
32. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip-search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
33. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip-searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Allegheny Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip-searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense
11

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g2e o1f22o0f 20
charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip-searches.
34. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each Member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip-search upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into, or establishment of, reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip-searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment, Trespassing and Failure to Pay Child Support.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip-searches -- each Member of the Class, including the named Plaintiff -- has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiff
36. Plaintiff Michael Rey is a 44 year old male. On or about February 13, 2006, he was arrested on non-felony charges for failing to pay child support and, the following day was transferred from a holding cell in the local courthouse to the Allegheny County Jail.
37. Plaintiff’s arrest was void of any reasonable suspicion that he harbored any weapons or contraband.
12

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g3e o1f32o0f 20
38. After being remanded to the Allegheny County Jail, Plaintiff remained in a holding cell for 24 hours. Plaintiff was then brought into a shower room and advised by a correctional officer that he would be strip-searched. In connection with the strip-search, Plaintiff was required to completely disrobe, lift his arms and legs, spread the lobes of his buttocks, lift up his testicles and bend over, so that he could be visually inspected by a correctional officer. Plaintiff was then ordered to shower while a Corrections Officer was present.
39. Plaintiff was released from the Allegheny County Jail the following day, after his family was able to come up with the $5,000.00 fee required to purge his overdue child support account.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to County and Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 40.
13

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g4e o1f42o0f 20
42. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting stripsearches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or other minor crimes absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
43. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiff's rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Jail Officers to strip-search Plaintiff and/or the Class Members based on their arrests for minor criminal charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Allegheny County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
44. These strip-searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections. As such, the County of Allegheny is directly liable for the damages of Plaintiff and Members of the Class.
45. Upon information and belief, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip-search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick are each individually responsible for the damages of the Plaintiff and Members of the Class.
46. Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick knew that the Jail’s strip-search policy was illegal,
14

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g5e o1f52o0f 20
and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiff and Members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
47. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff and the Members of the Class have been irreparably injured.
COUNT II Demand for Declaratory Judgment 49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 48. 50. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons. 51. Plaintiff and Members of the Class request that this Court issue a Declaratory Judgment, and that it declare the strip-search policy of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to be unconstitutional.
15

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g6e o1f62o0f 20
COUNT III Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 51.
53. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny, and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip-searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
54. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Jail, with new and/or prospective Members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the Class Representative.
55. The continuing pattern of strip-searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective Members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
56. Plaintiff demands that the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Allegheny County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip-searching individuals placed into the custody of the Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
16

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g7e o1f72o0f 20
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
57. The actions of the Policy Making Defendants detailed herein are outrageous in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip-search policy.
58. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Allegheny County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
59. The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Rey, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, requests that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: 1. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
17

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g8e o1f82o0f 20
2. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court;
3. A judgment against Defendant Ramon C. Rustin on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action awarding Punitive Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
4. A judgment against Defendant Edward D. Urban on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action awarding Punitive Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
5. A judgment against Defendant Gregory E. Grogan on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action awarding Punitive Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
6. A judgment against Defendant Lance E. Bohn on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action awarding Punitive Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
7. A judgment against Defendant William L. Emerick on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action awarding Punitive Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a jury and/or the Court;
18

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea1g9e o1f92o0f 20
8. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper;
9. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband; and,
10. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Respectfully submitted by: ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire /s/
D. AARON RIHN, ESQUIRE Pa. I.D. No.: 85752 2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 412-281-7229 Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire Alexandra Coler, Esquire Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 202-789-3960
19

CasCea2s:e062-:c0v5--0m0c9-2072-0T2F5M-RDCoMcumDenotc1u4m9e9n-1t 1-1FileFdil0e7d/1037//21030/26006PagPea2g0e o2f02o0f 20
Gary E. Mason, Esquire Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire The Mason Law Firm, P.C. 1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202-429-2290 Alexander E. Barnett, Esquire The Mason Law Firm, P.C. One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4632 New York, NY 10119 212-362-5770 Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518-434-1718 Daniel Levin, Esquire Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman 250 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-592-1500 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
20

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN

:

MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a :

Class of others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

SECOND AMENDED

THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,

:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

RAMON C. RUSTIN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity :

as Warden of the Allegheny County

:

Civil No. 2:06-CV-927

Jail, EDWARD D. URBAN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity :

as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County :

Jail, GREGORY E. GROGAN, both

:

individually and in his official capacity as :

Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County :

Jail, LANCE E. BOHN, both individually :

and in his official capacity as Deputy

:

Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and :

WILLIAM L. EMERICK, both individually :

and in his capacity as Assistant Deputy :

Warden of the Allegheny County Jail

:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

Defendants.

:

INTRODUCTION This is a Class Action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections has had a uniform practice and procedure of strip searching all individuals who enter the Allegheny County Jail and are placed

1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 20
in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this uniform practice and procedure is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and was promulgated by senior Bureau of Corrections officials; specifically, Defendants Ramon C. Rustin, Edward D. Urban, Gregory E. Grogan, Lance E. Bohn, and William L. Emerick.
It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or summary violations cannot be strip-searched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the uniform practice and procedure of Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Allegheny County Jail is not only clearly illegal, but is insensitive and unnecessary.
Plaintiffs Harry Delandro, and Karen Murphy bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a Class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their civil rights and those of the Class Members they propose to represent. Plaintiffs were charged with non-felony offenses, and were subjected to strip searches in violation of their rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for themselves and each Member of the Proposed Class, a declaration that the Bureau of Corrections’ uniform practices and procedures are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections from continuing to violate
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 20
the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Karen Murphy complain as follows:
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims and those of Proposed Class Members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Harry Delandro (“Delandro”) is an adult male individual who resides at 4517 Coleridge Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201. On or about April 19, 2006, Delandro was arrested and placed in the Allegheny County Jail on charges of failing to pay child support. 4. Plaintiff Karen Murphy (“Murphy”) is an adult female individual who resides at 3225 Orleans Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15214. On or about August 25, 2005, Murphy was arrested
3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 20
and placed in the Allegheny County Jail on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and harassment.
5. Defendant County of Allegheny (the “County”) is a county government organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Bureau of Corrections, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Allegheny County Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the Allegheny County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Allegheny County Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. The Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections (the “Bureau of Corrections”) is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-3100. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Office is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Bureau of Corrections was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Allegheny County Jail (the “Jail”). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the County of Allegheny, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Jail, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Bureau of Corrections personnel, including those working in the
4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 20
Jail. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Bureau of Corrections, together with the County of Allegheny, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Jail, and for ensuring that Bureau of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
7. Defendant Ramon C. Rustin (“Warden Rustin”) is the duly appointed Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pretrial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Warden Rustin’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Warden Rustin is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Edward D. Urban (“Deputy Warden Urban”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Urban’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Urban is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Gregory E. Grogan (“Deputy Warden Grogan”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Grogan’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second
5

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 6 of 20
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Grogan is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Lance E. Bohn (“Deputy Warden Bohn”) is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Bohn’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Deputy Warden Bohn is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant William L. Emerick (“Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick”) is the duly appointed Assistant Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the Jail exercises custodial or other control. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick’s principal place of business is the Allegheny County Jail, 950 Second Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Collectively, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick will be referred to as the “Policy Making Defendants.”
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated individuals
6

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 7 of 20
who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail.
14. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows: All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, summary offenses, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the County of Allegheny. The Class Period commences on July 13, 2004, and extends to the date on which Defendants are enjoined from or otherwise cease enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
15. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a Class Action under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
16. The Members of the Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and violations who are placed into the custody of the Jail every month -- all of whom are Members of the Proposed Class. Upon information and belief, the size of the Proposed Class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions.
17. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of Proposed Class Members and the fact that Class Members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some Members presently residing outside of Allegheny County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many
7

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 8 of 20
Members of the Class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’ conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All Members of the Class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
19. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the Class. Plaintiffs and all Members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the Class Members.
20. The Representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the Members of the Class.
21. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of Class Action and civil rights litigation. In short, Plaintiffs’ counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Allegheny County, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for the Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among Members of the Class or between counsel and Members of the Class.
22. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiffs seek Class Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all Class Members were subject to
8

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 9 of 20
the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Jail. In short, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Jail Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all Class Members.
23. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
24. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual Members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Jail is a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the Class Period.
25. A Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual Members of the Class is impracticable given the large number of Class Members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual Members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a Class Action in this District presents
9

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 10 of 20
far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each Member of the Class.
26. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals.
27. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 28. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes, unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 29. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County Correctional Facility and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband.
10

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 11 of 20
30. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Allegheny County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Second Amended Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as (“strip searches”).
31. The County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the Allegheny County Jail's written policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections.
32. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
33. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
34. Upon information and belief, the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip
11

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 12 of 20
searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Allegheny Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
35. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each Member of the Class, including the named Plaintiffs, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspicion. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other innocuous offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment, Trespassing and Failure to Pay Child Support.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip searches conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches -- each Member of the Class, including the named Plaintiffs -- has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs 37. Plaintiff Harry Delandro is an adult male. On or about Wednesday, April 19, 2006, at approximately 9:00 p.m., he was arrested in his home on non-felony charges for failing to pay child support.
12

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 13 of 20
38. At the time of his arrest, Delandro was on crutches and wearing a foot immobilizer.
39. Delandro’s arrest was void of any reasonable suspicion that the harbored any weapons or contraband.
40. Delandro was put in a holding cell for the night. The following morning and before having seen a judge, Delandro was provided with jail issue clothes and strip searched. Delandro was required to remove his underwear and lift his testicles in connection with this search.
41. The next day at approximately 5:00 a.m., Delandro was taken back to processing so that he could get dressed and then go to Court.
42. Delandro saw a hearing officer that afternoon, who ordered that he be released. 43. Thereafter, Delandro returned to the Jail, was put in another holding cell, strip searched yet again, and finally released at about 6:00 p.m. that evening. 44. In connection with the second strip search, Delandro was required to completely disrobe, lift up his testicles, bend over and cough, so that he could be visually inspected by a correctional officer. 45. Delandro was able to observe other individuals being strip searched while he was waiting for his turn to be searched. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to County and Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom, Delandro has suffered, and continues to suffer, psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
13

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 14 of 20
47. Plaintiff Karen Murphy is an adult female. 48. On or about August 25, 2005 Ms. Murphy was arrested after placing a call to 911 operators requesting that the police be sent to her elderly father’s home to check on him. 49. At the time of the arrest Murphy was wearing only her underwear and a t-shirt. 50. After initial booking into the facility, Murphy was put in a holding cell where she remained for several hours. 51. She was, thereafter, strip searched during the course of a supervised shower. 52. Murphy was required to completely disrobe, lift her breasts, squat, and manipulate her genital areas so that she could be visually inspected by the female guard. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip-search conducted pursuant to County and Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom, Murphy has suffered, and continues to suffer, psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law --
54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 53.
55. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip
14

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 15 of 20
searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or other minor crimes absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons.
56. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Jail Officers to strip search Plaintiffs and Class Members based on their arrests for minor criminal charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Allegheny County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches.
57. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections. As such, the County of Allegheny is directly liable for the damages of Plaintiffs and Members of the Class.
58. Upon information and belief, Sheriff DeFazio, Chief Deputy Mullen, Warden Rustin, and Deputy Warden Urban are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick are each individually responsible for the damages of the Plaintiffs and Members of the Class.
59. Warden Rustin, Deputy Warden Urban, Deputy Warden Grogan, Deputy Warden Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden Emerick knew that the Jail’s strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and Members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
15

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 16 of 20
60. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
61. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class have been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 61.
63. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
64. Plaintiffs and Members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections to be unconstitutional.
16

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 17 of 20
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 64.
66. The policy, custom and practice of the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the County of Allegheny and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
67. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Jail, with new and/or prospective Members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the Plaintiffs.
68. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with minor crimes will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective Members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
69. Plaintiffs demand that the County of Allegheny, the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, the Policy Making Defendants and Allegheny County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons, and seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much.
17

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 18 of 20
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 70. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy. 71. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Allegheny County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 72. The Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Karen Murphy, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief:
1. An order certifying this action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
2. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to Plaintiff and each Member of the Proposed Class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court;
3. A judgment against Defendant Ramon C. Rustin on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages; 18

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 19 of 20

4. A judgment against Defendant Edward D. Urban on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages;

5. A judgment against Defendant Gregory E. Grogan on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages;

6. A judgment against Defendant Lance E. Bohn on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages;

7. A judgment against Defendant William L. Emerick on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages;

8. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Allegheny and the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections’ policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Jail, regardless of the crime charged or suspicion of contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper;

9. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband; and,

10. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Dated: November ___, 2007

Respectfully submitted by:

By: /s/ D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 412.281.7229 PA ID. 85752

19

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 60 Filed 11/08/07 Page 20 of 20
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire Alexandra C. Warren, Esquire (Attorney. I.D. No. 93651) CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 202.789.3960
Gary E. Mason, Esquire Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.429.2290
Alexander E. Barnett, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1120 Avenue of the Americas Suite 4019 New York, NY 10036 212.362-5770
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center, Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518.434.1718
Daniel Levin, Esquire Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman 250 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215.592.1500
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND PROPOSED CLASS
20

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 125 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 3

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

HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 06-927 ) ) )

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2009, upon consideration of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and the defendants motion for summary judgment, and after a Report and Recommendation was issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties were granted thirteen days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of defendants objections as well as oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment heard by the Court on October 20, 2009 and with more than thirty (30) days having expired therefrom, upon final review of all the filings and arguments of the parties and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability (Document No. 107) is GRANTED as to The County of Allegheny and DENIED in all other respects, and that the defendants’ motion for summary

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 125 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 3
judgment (Document No. 111) is GRANTED as to defendants Ramon Rustin, Edward Urban, Gregory Grogan, Lance Bohn and William Emerick who are hereby dismissed from this action and said Motion is DENIED in all other respects. The caption of this action is hereby amended to read as follows:
HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,
Defendant. Plaintiffs shall file their pretrial statement on or before January 4, 2010 and Defendant shall file its pretrial statement on or before February 4, 2010. The Court will immediately thereafter schedule a pretrial conference and a trial date.
BY THE COURT: s/ Terrence F. McVerry United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 125 Filed 12/02/09 Page 3 of 3
cc: D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire Email: arihn@peircelaw.com Daniel C. Levin, Esquire Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com Alexander E. Barnett, Esquire Email: abarnett20@hotmail.com Alexandra C. Warren, Esquire Email: awarren@cuneolaw.com Gary E. Mason, Esquire Email: gmason@masonlawdc.com Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com Elmer R. Keach, III, Esquire Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire Email: nmigliaccio@masonlawdc.com Scott C. Weeber, Esquire Email: sweeber@peircelaw.com Craig E. Maravich, Esquire Email: cmaravich@county.allegheny.pa.us Michael H. Wojcik, Esquire Email: mwojcik@county.allegheny.pa.us

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN

:

MURPHY, individually and on behalf of :

a Class of others similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

Civil Action Number: 06-CV-0927

v.

:

:

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, et. al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

____________________________________:

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the above-captioned class action has been settled between

the parties. The parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached to this Notice. Class Counsel will file

a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement with the Court on or before

September 14, 2010.

Respectfully Submitted By:

1. Dated: September 10, 2010

/s Elmer Robert Keach, III
__________________ Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire Member of the Bar, USDC, W.D. Pa. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT
KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 518.434.1718

LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE CERTIFIED CLASS

1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 2 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 3 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 4 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 5 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 6 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 7 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 8 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 9 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 10 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 11 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 12 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 13 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 14 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 15 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 16 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 17 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 18 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 19 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 20 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 21 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 22 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 23 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 24 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 25 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 26 of 62

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 27 of 62
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 28 of 62
DELANDRO, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, CASE NO.: 2:06-CV-927 CLAIM FORM AND RELEASE
PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND CLAIM FORM CAREFULLY
To determine if you are eligible to receive money from the Settlement, you must fill out the Claim Form and Release (“Claim Form”). The Claim Form is attached at the end of these instructions. The completed and signed Claim Form must be postmarked by [insert date]. If you do not send it in by [insert date], you will not get any money. You must sign on the last page. You must submit it in the enclosed envelope or another properly addressed, postage prepaid envelope to the following address:
Settlement Administrator[insert address + 800 number] If you have any questions about how the Settlement Fund will be divided up, you should write or call the Settlement Administrator at this number. All Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves are bound by the terms of the judgment. This is true whether you send in a Claim Form or not. If you have asked to be excluded, do not submit a Claim Form.
I. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS? You are in the “Settlement Class” if you meet the following conditions:
1. You entered the Allegheny County Jail; AND 2. You were placed in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being
charged with misdemeanors; summary offenses; traffic infractions; civil commitments or other minor crimes; or bench warrants or probation violations where the underlying charge was a misdemeanor, summary offense or other minor crime; AND 3. You were strip searched upon entry to the Allegheny County Jail without reasonable cause; AND 4. You were strip searched during the period of July 13, 2004 through March 18, 2008.
If you have questions about these requirements, review the Class Notice.
1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 29 of 62
II. CLAIM FORM INSTRUCTIONS
A. Please type or neatly print all the information that is asked for. B. If you believe you are entitled to money from the Settlement Fund, you must
complete Part 1 of the Claim Form and the additional parts of the Claim Form that apply to you.
C. By signing below you are verifying, under penalty of perjury, that the information your have included is correct. You also agree to provide additional information to Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator to support your claim. They may ask you to do this in the future.
D. By signing below you are also verifying that you have not filed a claim or lawsuit about being strip searched at the Allegheny County Jail, that you did not ask anyone else to file one for you, and that you don't know of anyone who might have filed one for you.
E. Please read the instructions carefully. Your claim will be checked and verified by the Settlement Administrator. You should keep copies of all documents that support your claim while this is going on.
F. A Claim Form will be considered submitted to the Settlement Administrator if it is mailed in a first-class envelope postmarked by the due date. You may want to send in your Claim Form by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. If you send the Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator in some way other than first-class mail, the Claim Form will be considered "submitted" when it is received by the Settlement Administrator.
G. The Settlement Administrator will not tell you when they get your Claim Form. If you want to make sure the Settlement Administrator gets your form, you should send it by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. It will take some time to process all the forms and send the checks. This work will be done as fast as possible, but each claim must be checked for accuracy and recorded.
H. Please write or call the Settlement Administrator if your address changes.
THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE FILLED OUT AND SIGNED IF YOU WANT TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO GET MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT FUND. THE ENVELOPE MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN [INSERT DATE] 2010, AND MUST BE MAILED TO:
[SETTLEMENT ADMIN / ADDRESS]
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 30 of 62
III. CLAIM FORM
DELANDRO, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY PART 1: CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION Claimant’s Name: _______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________ City: ___________________ State/Country: ______________ Zip Code: ___________ Date of Birth: _______________ Social Security No. ________________________
Date of Arrest if known. Please say so if the date you give is an estimate. Please note that only persons who were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail between July 13, 2004 through March 18, 2008, who were incarcerated in the Allegheny County Jail are eligible. If you were arrested and admitted to the Allegheny County Jail on multiple occasions, please identify your first arrest and admission. __________________________________________________________________ ____ Actual Date ____ Estimated Date
_________ Allegheny County #, if known
Criminal charges or other reason, if known (check one):
Please check this box to signify that you were subjected to a strip search upon that admission to the Allegheny County Jail. Telephone Number: _________________________ (daytime) _________________________ (cell) _________________________ (evening)
Email Address: _________________________________
3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 31 of 62
IV. SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT By signing below, I agree that the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has the power to rule on my claim as a Settlement Class Member, and that the Court has the power to enforce the Release described below.
RELEASE By signing below, you acknowledge the Release and discharge of the Defendant, and all of its respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, officers, agents, representatives, and employees, from any and all claims or causes of action that were, could have been, or should have been asserted by the named Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement Class against the Released Parties, or any of them, based upon or related to strip searches in the Allegheny County Jail.
VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing information provided by the undersigned is true and correct. I also declare that I was strip searched when I was admitted into the Allegheny County Jail. I filled out and signed this Proof of Claim and Release form on _______________________, 2010, in ______________________________
(City, State, Country). _____________________________________ (Sign your name here) _____________________________________ (Type/Print your name here)
4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 32 of 62
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 33 of 62
Legal Notice United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND HEARING
If You Were Admitted The Allegheny County Jail From July 13, 2004 to March 18, 2008 And Were Strip
Searched Upon Admission, Then Your Rights Could Be Affected By A Proposed Class Action Settlement.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania authorized this notice. It is not from a lawyer. You are not being sued.
o This is a proposed Settlement of a Class Action lawsuit alleging that corrections officers employed at the Allegheny County Jail engaged in the illegal strip searches of all persons who have been incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail commencing on July 13, 2004 and continuing to March 18, 2008 who, after being charged but not convicted of misdemeanors, summary offenses, civil commitments and traffic infractions as defined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as parole or probation violations where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, summary offense or traffic infraction who, pursuant to the policy of Allegheny County, have been strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County jail without reasonable suspicion.
o The Settlement would entitle each Class Member to a share of a $3 million Settlement Fund (after payment of administrative costs, an incentive award to the representative Plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees).
o Visit the Settlement Website at [INSERT] for additional details about the Settlement. You may also get additional information by calling 1-800 [insert phone #] or by writing to [insert address].
o Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don’t act. Read this notice carefully.
1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 34 of 62

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

Submit a Claim Form

You must submit a Claim Form to receive payment

under the Settlement. You must submit a Claim

Form by [Insert Date] to receive any money.

Exclude Yourself

If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will

not be bound by the Settlement or judgment and will

not be entitled to a cash payment. You will be free to

pursue your claims against the Defendant. This is the

only option that allows you to bring or to be part of

any other lawsuit against the Defendant in this case

about the same legal claims that are advanced in this

case. You must exclude yourself from the

Settlement by [Insert Date].

Object

If you do not exclude yourself, you may write to the

Court about why you do not like the Settlement or the

request for legal fees and costs. You must send a

written objection to the Court postmarked no later

than [Insert Date].

Go to a Hearing

You may ask o speak in Court about the fairness of the

Settlement or the request for fees and costs.

Do Nothing

You get no payment. You give up your right to sue

Defendants on these claims later.

o These rights and options - and the deadlines to exercise them - are explained in this notice.

! The Court in charge of this case still must decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Likewise, payments to Class Members will be distributed only if the Court grants final approval of the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved.

I. WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE PACKAGE?
You or someone in your family may have been admitted to the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, summary offenses, traffic infractions, civil commitments, or other minor crimes, or certain violations of parole, probation or bench warrants where the underlying crime was a misdemeanor from July 13, 2004 to March 18, 2008 and been subject to a strip search.
You were sent this notice because you have the right to know about a proposed Settlement of a Class Action lawsuit, and about your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves it, and after any possible
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 35 of 62
objections and appeals are resolved, an administrator appointed by the Court will make the monetary payments that the Settlement allows. You will be informed of the progress of the Settlement. You should understand that the process of Court approval may take a good deal of time.
This package explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them and how to get them.
The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, United States District Judge Terrence F. McVerry presiding. The case is called Delandro, et al. v. County of Allegheny, Case No. 06-CV927. The persons who sued are called the Plaintiffs, and the municipality they sued, the County of Allegheny, is called the Defendant.
II. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
Plaintiffs claim in this lawsuit that the County of Allegheny illegally strip searched individuals upon their admission to the Allegheny County Jail who were charged with minor offenses, in violation of the unreasonable search provisions of the United States Constitution. Defendant denies that it did anything wrong, and contends that even if it did do anything wrong, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are not entitled to any money as a result of being searched.
III. WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION?
In a Class Action, one or more people, called the Class Representatives (in this case, Karen Murphy and Harry Delandro), sue on behalf of all people who have similar claims. All of these people are a Class or Class Members. A Class Action resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class. United States District Judge Terrance F. McVerry is in charge of this Class Action lawsuit.
IV. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?
The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendant. Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement. That way, they avoid the costs and risks of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representatives and their attorneys think the Settlement is best for everyone who is alleged to have been illegally strip searched.
V. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?
Everyone who fits the following description is a Settlement Class Member: you were placed in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail between July 13, 2004 and continuing to March 18, 2008, after being charged with misdemeanors; summary offenses; traffic infractions; civil commitments or other minor crimes; or bench warrants, parole violations or probation violations where the underlying charge was a misdemeanor, summary offense or other minor crime.
3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 36 of 62

The Settlement does not cover individuals who entered the Allegheny County Jail after being convicted of (as compared to only being charged with) a crime, individuals charged with felonies upon their entry into the Allegheny County Jail, or anyone who entered the Allegheny County Jail but was not strip searched as part of the Allegheny County Jail’s booking procedure. Based on discovery in this action, it is clear that many individuals who entered the Allegheny County Jail were not strip searched because they were bailed out or otherwise released before receiving the Allegheny County Jail uniform.

VI.

DO I NEED TO PROVE THAT I WAS STRIP-SEARCHED, AND

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

In filling out the Claim Form, you will affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you were strip searched during the admission process at the Allegheny County Jail. If your name is not contained in Allegheny County Jail’s records, you may be asked to provide additional documentation before being allowed to participate in the Settlement.

A strip search occurred if, during the admission process, you were ordered to take off some or all of your clothes by an Allegheny County Jail employee, with that employee watching you undress. Almost all members of the Class may also have been forced to bend at the waist or manipulate body parts to allow for a visual inspection. These searches almost always occurred when someone received the Jail Uniform in the Jail’s shower room. If you were searched in this manner when you were booked into the facility and meet the other eligibility criteria, you are a member of the Class and entitled to make a claim. You will need to provide an affirmation on the Claim Form confirming that one of these searches was conducted on you when you entered the Allegheny County Jail.

VIII. HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER THE CRIME FOR WHICH I WAS CHARGED UPON ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL QUALIFIES ME FOR INCLUSION IN THE CLASS?

You were placed in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors; summary offenses; traffic infractions; civil commitments or other minor crimes; or bench warrants or probation violations where the underlying charge was a misdemeanor, summary offense or other minor crime. Everyone brought to the Allegheny County Jail pre-adjudication on such minor offenses and strip searched in the absence of reasonable suspicion upon admission during the Class Period is eligible under this Settlement Agreement.

You are eligible to make a claim on the settlement if you were charged with a misdemeanor or summary offense when you entered the Allegheny County Jail. Misdemeanors are minor crimes under Pennsylvania Law, and include charges such as trespassing, simple assault and driving while intoxicated. Summary offenses include

4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 37 of 62
regulatory offenses (hunting and fishing violations) or violations of municipal codes, such as noise or littering ordinances.
Additionally, you are eligible under the Settlement Agreement if you were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail subject to a civil commitment. A civil commitment is an order from a non-criminal court, usually the Family Court, committing that individual to the Allegheny County Jail. Individuals admitted to the Allegheny County Jail, on a civil commitment, for example, a commitment for failure to pay child support, are members of the Class.
Similarly, if you were arrested and brought to the Allegheny County Jail for traffic offenses or under traffic warrants, failing to pay fines and contempt, preadjudication, you are eligible under the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, if you failed to honor a payment order with a municipal court and were arrested, or failed to appear for a municipal court date and arrested, brought to the Allegheny County Jail and strip searched, you are eligible to receive a settlement payment.
IX. I WAS ADMITTED TO THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL BUT I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT MY CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE. HOW CAN I FIND THIS OUT, AND HOW DO I KNOW IF THE CHARGE WAS A MISDEMEANOR OR VIOLATION?
There are several ways for potential Class Members to determine the nature of their criminal charges. First, you can review your charging documents, which should reflect your actual charges. If you do not have your charging document and remember the local court where you were prosecuted, the Court Clerk will be able to help you find these documents.
If you need additional help determining whether you are a Class Member, or of you have other questions, you can contact the Settlement Administrator at [insert number].
You can still make a claim if you do not remember your criminal charges if you believe you are a member of the Class, but you may be asked for additional information.
X. I PLED GUILTY TO A CRIME. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT MY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail solely on non-felony or other minor charges, as defined above, you can participate in the Settlement regardless of how you resolved your criminal charges, including if you pled guilty to those charges. This is provided that you were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail during the Class Period before being sentenced by a court. For most Class Members, this would mean that they were committed to the Allegheny County Jail after they were arraigned before a Judge. If
5

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 38 of 62
you were sentenced before admission to the Allegheny County Jail (meaning you were committed after pleading guilty or being convicted at trial) you are not a Class Member.
XI. WHAT IF I WAS ADMITTED TO THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DURING THE CLASS PERIOD? CAN I STILL PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT?
Yes. Individuals who were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail on more than one occasion during the class period can be members of the class and can recover money. They can only recover one payment, however, meaning that you will not be provided with extra payments if you were admitted to the Allegheny County Jail more than one time.
XII. I AM STILL NOT SURE IF I AM INCLUDED.
If you are still not sure if you are included, you can ask for help. You can call [insert number] and the Settlement Administrator or Class Counsel may help answer your questions. For more information, you can also visit the website, [INSERT], or you can just fill out the Claim Form and return it to the Settlement Administrator to see if you qualify.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS - WHAT YOU GET
XIII. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Defendant has agreed to pay $3,000,000.00 (Three Million Dollars) to resolve this Litigation. The money will be used to: 1) compensate Class Members who have been illegally strip searched; 2) pay for notifying Class Members and administering the Settlement; 3) pay incentive awards of $18,000.00 each to the named Plaintiffs Karen Murphy and Harry Delandro and 4) pay attorneys’ fees and expenses.
A complete description of the Settlement is provided in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by visiting [enter website address] or by calling [enter administrator phone number].
XIV. WHAT CAN I GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?
The benefits that you will receive from the Settlement:
Members of the Class will receive an equal pro-rata share of $3,000,000.00, minus an incentive award for the Class Representatives, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. Class Counsel anticipates, based on claims rates from other settlements, that all individuals who are members of the Class that make a claim on the Settlement will receive between $600.00 and $900.00 as a settlement payment. These amounts are
6

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 39 of 62
dependent on how many claims are received by the Claims Administrator during the claims period, and are subject to change based on the number of claims received. Payments to members of the Class shall not exceed $3,000.00. No amount is guaranteed.
HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT - SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM
XV. HOW CAN I GET A PAYMENT?
To qualify for a payment, you MUST send in a Claim Form. A Claim Form is attached to this Notice. You can also get a claim form on the Internet at [INSERT]. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, sign it, and mail it postmarked no later than [insert date].
You may be asked for additional documents, and will be contacted in writing. You may want to send in your claim form by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to ensure that it is received by the Settlement Administrator.
XVI. WHEN WOULD I GET MY PAYMENT?
The Court will hold a hearing on [insert date] to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Because of the difficult financial situation facing Allegheny County, the County is making payments for the settlement fund in three phases. The County is expected to make two payments affecting the payments to class members, one on March 31, 2011 and one on June 30, 2011. All class members will be paid their settlement payments prior to the payment of expenses, attorneys’ fees or incentive awards. Payments will be made to class members in the order the claim forms are received by the Settlement Administrator, and all payments are expected to be completed in July 2011. However, even if Judge McVerry approves the settlement, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether those appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. Everyone who sends in a Claim Form will be informed of the progress of the Settlement. Please be patient.
XVII. WHAT AM I GIVING UP TO GET A PAYMENT OR STAY IN THE CLASS?
Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means you can’t sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against the County of Allegheny, its employees, or its elected officials about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you. If you sign the Claim Form, you will agree to release all claims that you have relating to having been strip searched.
7

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 40 of 62
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
If you do not want a payment from this Settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue the County of Allegheny on your own about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to preserve these rights. This is called excluding yourself - or is sometimes referred to as “opting out” of the Settlement Class.
XVIII. HOW DO I GET OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT? To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying
that you want to be excluded from Delandro, et al. v. County of Allegheny. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than [insert date] to [insert address].
You can’t exclude yourself on the phone or by email. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) the County of Allegheny in the future.
XIX. IF I DO NOT EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I SUE THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY FOR THE SAME THING LATER?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue the County of Allegheny for the claims that this Settlement involves. If you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately. You must exclude yourself from this class action to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, the exclusion deadline is [insert date].
XX. IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I GET MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT?
No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a Claim Form to ask for money. But, you may sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against the County of Allegheny.
THE LAWYERS AND INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING YOU
XXI. DO I HAVE A LAWYER IN THIS CASE?
The Court approved Robert Peirce and Associates; Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Mason, LLP, Washington, DC; The Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC, Amsterdam, New York; and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC to represent you and other Class Members. Together, the lawyers
8

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 41 of 62
are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
XXII. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS AND THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES BE PAID?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and expenses as a percentage of the $3,000,000.00 (Three Million Dollars) settlement, and a payment of $18,000.00 (Eighteen Thousand Dollars) each for Class Representatives Karen Murphy and Harry Delandro. The Settlement Agreement provides that thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3) percent of the Settlement Fund will be paid to Class Counsel as an award of attorneys’ fees, together with an award for the reimbursement of expenses. These amounts will be deducted from the Settlement Fund before payments are made to Class Members. The costs of administering the Settlement, which are estimated at $__________, will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement or some part of it.
XXIII. HOW DO I TELL THE COURT THAT I DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?
If you are a Class Member, you can object to the Settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give objections why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to Delandro, et al. v. County of Allegheny to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons why you object to this Settlement and the case number (06-cv-927). Mail the objection to these three different places postmarked no later than [insert date].
COURT U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Office of the Clerk of Court 700 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219
CLASS COUNSEL D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
DEFENSE COUNSEL CRAIG MARAVICH, ESQUIRE
9

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 42 of 62
Allegheny County Law Department 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
XXIV. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBJECTING AND EXCLUDING MYSELF?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be a part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer legally affects you.
THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to do so.
XXV. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?
On [insert date] the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing in the Federal Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, in Courtroom [insert courtroom] to determine whether the Class was properly certified and whether the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class Counsel. This hearing may be continued or rescheduled by the Court without further notice. We do not know how long it will take the Court to give its decision.
XXVI. DO I HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING?
No. Class Counsel will answer questions Judge McVerry may have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not required.
XXVII. MAY I SPEAK AT THE HEARING?
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your “Notice of Intention to Appear in Delandro, et al. v. County of Allegheny” case no. 06-cv-927. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number and your signature and the case number 06-cv-927. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked no later than [insert date] and be sent to the
10

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 43 of 62
Clerk of the Court, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel, at the three addresses in question XXIII. You cannot speak at this hearing if you excluded yourself.
IF YOU DO NOTHING
XXVIII. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING AT ALL? If you do nothing, you will get no money from the Settlement. But, unless you
exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against the County of Allegheny about the legal issues in this case, ever again. Unless you exclude yourself, you need to file a claim to receive a monetary payment under the Settlement.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
XXIX. ARE THERE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT? This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in a
Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement by writing to the Settlement Administrator at [insert address] or by visiting [insert web address]. XXX. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
You can call [insert number], write to the Settlement Administrator at [insert address], or visit the website at www.alleghenystripsearch.com, where you will find answers to common questions about the Settlement, a Claim Form, plus other information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member and whether you are eligible for payment.
11

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 44 of 62
EXHIBIT C

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 45 of 62

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

HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, vs.

Civil Action No.: 2:06-CV-927

THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT

THIS CASE coming on for hearing before the Honorable Terrence F. McVerry, U.S.D.J.

on __________________, 2010, pursuant to this Court's Order of ______________________, in

order for this Court to conduct a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether the proposed

Settlement Agreement between the Parties is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to address Class

Counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs; and the Settlement Class Members

being represented by Class Counsel and Defendant being represented by its attorney; AND THE

COURT having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan, and

Memorandum of Law submitted by Class Counsel, having received evidence at the hearing,

having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendant, and having considered the

submissions by Class Members, now makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This action was commenced on July 13, 2006, as a Class Action.

2. After several years of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery and

1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 46 of 62
motion practice, and as a result of intensive, arm's length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendant, including settlement conferences before former Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson, the Parties have reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendant ("Settlement Agreement"). The resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on _____________.
3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Plan and Class Notice, which provided Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed Settlement. The Notice Plan provided an opportunity for Class Members to file objections to the Settlement, and an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement.
4. As of the deadline for the filing of objections, no objections were filed. Given the size of this Settlement, and the Notice Plan described above, this Court finds that the absence of objections is indicative of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement with the Defendant.
5. The settling Parties have filed with the Court an affidavit declaring that the mailing of the Court approved notice, consistent with the Notice Plan, has been completed.
6. The Court finds that the published notice, mailed notice and Internet posting constitute the best practicable notice of the Fairness Hearing, proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and Short Form Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Pennsylvania and any other
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 47 of 62
applicable law. 7. Any persons who wished to be excluded from this action were provided an
opportunity to "opt out" pursuant to the Notice. All persons who have validly excluded themselves from the action have no rights under the Settlement Agreement and shall not be bound by the Settlement Agreement or the final judgment herein and the names of those persons are set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
8. Settlement Class Members are bound by the: Settlement, Settlement Agreement, Release contained within the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Order and Judgment. Settlement Class Members do not have a further opportunity to opt out of this Action.
9. Any Class Member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
10. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendant in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number of factors which the Court has considered in affirming this Settlement, including:
a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested;
b. This Settlement has the benefit of providing relief to Class Members now, without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously 3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 48 of 62
contested among the Parties to this litigation. This Settlement provides Class Members with a substantial monetary benefit; and,
c. This Settlement is clearly a product of hard fought litigation between the Parties, and not a result of any collusion on the part of Class Counsel or Counsel for the Defendant.
11. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendant their application
for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses consistent with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel's request and hereby grants the request.
12. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a
simplified process, and workable. In any event, the Court will retain jurisdiction to work out any
unanticipated problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF
FACT, THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this
proceeding.
14. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following
Settlement Class is certified for purposes of final settlement:
Settlement Class:
All persons who have been incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail commencing on July 13, 2004 and continuing to March 18, 2008 who, after being charged but not convicted of misdemeanors, summary offenses, civil commitments and traffic infractions as defined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as parole or probation violations where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, summary offense or traffic infraction who, pursuant to the policy of Allegheny County, have been strip searched upon
4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 49 of 62
their entry into the Allegheny County jail without reasonable suspicion.
15. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, and that a Class Action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23 are present. The Class Members are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions of law and fact common to all Class Members predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one proceeding with respect to all Class Members. The Class Representatives' claims are typical of those of the Class. The Class Action mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and resolving this action.
16. The Settlement Class Representatives, Karen Murphy and Harry Delandro, are entitled to and are hereby awarded a payment of $18,000.00 each, in recognition of the efforts they undertook in connection with this lawsuit. All Class Members who have made claims on the settlement are entitled to receive their pro rata share of the Settlement fund, as members of Subclass I not to exceed $3,000.00, after administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards are deducted from the fund.
17. Any unused monies will be donated to the Neighborhood Legal Services of Allegheny County.
18. Class Counsel are qualified, experienced, and have aggressively litigated this case, thereby demonstrating their adequacy as counsel for the Settlement Class. D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire; Robert Peirce and Associates, P.C.; Daniel C. Levin, Esquire, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA; Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire and Alexandra Warren, Esquire of Cuneo
5

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 50 of 62

Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire; Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, Amsterdam, New York; and Gary E. Mason, Esquire and Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire, Mason, LLP are hereby appointed as counsel for the Settlement Class.
19. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
20. The Courts finds that the request for attorneys' fees is reasonable.

NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement is GRANTED. 2. All Class Members who have not timely filed an opt out request are barred and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any claim or action against the Defendant. Any Class Member who has not timely filed a request to exclude themselves shall be enjoined from initiating and/or proceeding as a class action in any forum. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________

____________________________________ The Honorable Terrence McVerry United States District Judge

6

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 51 of 62
EXHIBIT D

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 52 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, vs. THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY,
Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 2:06-CV-927

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendant have entered into a Settlement Agreement intended to resolve the litigation pending in this Court; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement, together with supporting materials, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed Settlement and dismissal with prejudice of these actions against the Defendant; and WHEREAS, the Court has before it the Parties’ Notice for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, together with the Settlement Agreement and supporting materials; and WHEREAS, the Court is satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement were the result of good faith, arm’s length settlement negotiations between competent and experienced counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendant.

1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 53 of 62
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Capitalized terms used in this Order have the meanings assigned to them in
the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 2. The terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement are hereby conditionally
approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing provided for below. The Court finds that said Settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness and that notice of the proposed Settlement should be given as provided in this Order.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class:
All persons who have been incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail commencing on July 13, 2004 and continuing to March 18, 2008 who, after being charged but not convicted of misdemeanors, summary offenses, civil commitments and traffic infractions as defined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as parole or probation violations where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, summary offense or traffic infraction who, pursuant to the policy of Allegheny County, have been strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County jail without reasonable suspicion. 4. The Court further conditionally finds that Plaintiffs Karen Murphy and Harry Delandro are adequate Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. 5. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel are adequate Class Counsel. 6. The Court approves the Class Notice of Settlement attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Summary Notice for Publication attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Court also approves the Notice Program as set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement.
2

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 54 of 62
7. If the Settlement Agreement is terminated or not consummated for any
reason whatsoever, the conditional certification of the Settlement Class shall be void.
Additionally, Plaintiffs reserve all of their rights, including the right to continue with the
litigation pending at the time of the Settlement should the Settlement Agreement not be
consummated.
Notice to Settlement Class and Appointment of Settlement Administrator
8. Counsel for the Class (“Class Counsel”) are as follows:
D. AARON RIHN, ESQUIRE Pa. I.D. No.: 85752 ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire Alexandra Coler, Esquire CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002
Gary E. Mason, Esquire Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire MASON, LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010
Daniel Levin, Esquire LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
3

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 55 of 62
9. Beginning no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Class Counsel shall cause to be disseminated the notices, substantially in the form attached as Exhibits A and B hereto, in the manner set forth in Section IV of the Settlement Agreement. Such Notice Program will be completed expeditiously pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Class Members will have forty-five (45) days from the Notice Date to opt out or to object, and one-hundred fifty (150) days from the Notice Date to file claims. Prior to the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiffs and/or the Claims Administrator shall serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the provisions of this paragraph.
10. The Class Notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement as filed with the Court is hereby found to be the best practicable means of providing notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, due process, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Pennsylvania and all other applicable laws. The Notices are accurate, objective, informative and provide Class Members with all of the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the Settlement and its fairness.
11. Class Counsel are authorized to retain RSM McGladrey, Inc. in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement Class
12. Any member of the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Claims
4

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 56 of 62
Administrator, so that it is received by the Claims Administrator at the address indicated in the Notice on or before the close of the opt out period. The Request for Exclusion shall fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Members of the Settlement Class may not exclude themselves by filing Requests for Exclusion as a group or class, but must in each instance individually and personally execute a Request for Exclusion and timely transmit it to the Claims Administrator.
13. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound by all the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person objected to the Settlement and whether or not such person made a claim upon, or participated in, the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Final Approval Hearing
14. A hearing on the Settlement is hereby scheduled to be held before this Court on no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the Notice Date, to consider the fairness, the reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement, the dismissal with prejudice of this class action with respect to the Released Parties that are Defendant herein, and the entry of final judgment in this Class Action. Class Counsel’s application for award of attorney’s fees and costs shall be heard at the time of the hearing.
15. The date and time of the hearing shall be set forth in the Notice, but the hearing shall be subject to adjournment by the Court without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class other than that which may be posted by the Court. Class Counsel will advise members of the Settlement Class of any scheduling issues by way of the Settlement Website.
5

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 57 of 62
16. Any person or entity that does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but need not, enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. Settlement Class members who do not enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented by Class Counsel.
17. Any person who does not elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class may, but need not, submit comments or objections to the proposed Settlement. Any Class member may object to the proposed Settlement, entry of Final Order and Judgment approving the Settlement, and Class Counsel’s application for fees and expenses by serving a written objection.
18. Any Class Member making the objection (an “objector”) must sign the objection personally. An objection must state why the objector objects to the proposed Settlement and provide the basis to support such position. If an objector intends to appear personally at the hearing, the objector must include with the objection a notice of the objector’s intent to appear at the hearing.
19. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must be filed no later than forty-five (45) days from the Notice Date. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one Class Member, counsel must identify each such Class Member and each Class Member must have complied with the requirements of this Order. These documents must be filed with the Clerk of the Court at the following address:
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Office of the Clerk of Court 700 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219
6

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 58 of 62
20. Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear, must also be mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant at the address listed below: CLASS COUNSEL:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
DEFENSE COUNSEL: CRAIG MARAVICH, ESQUIRE Allegheny County Law Department 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 21. Only Class Members who have filed and served valid and timely notices of
objection shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member who does not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement, entry of Final Judgment, or to Class Counsel’s application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in this Order, shall be deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
22. Persons wishing to be heard at the hearing are required to file written comments or objections and indicate in their written comments or objections their intention to appear at the hearing. Settlement Class Members need not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.
23. All members of the Settlement Class who do not personally and timely request to be excluded from the Class are enjoined from proceeding against the Defendant for the claims made in the Complaint.
7

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 59 of 62

Other Provisions 24. Upon approval of the Settlement provided for in this Settlement Agreement,
each and every time period and provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court.
25. All reasonable costs incurred in notifying members of the Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Agreement, shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________

______________________________ The Honorable Terrence F. McVerry United States District Judge

8

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 60 of 62
EXHIBIT E

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 61 of 62
COURT ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE
If you were admitted into the Allegheny County Jail between July 13, 2004 and March 18, 2008 and were
strip searched upon admission, you could get a payment from a Class Action Settlement.
A $3 million Settlement has been proposed in a Class Action lawsuit about the strip search policies of the Allegheny County Jail. If you meet the criteria explained below, you can share in this Settlement.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.
Who’s Included?
You are a Class Member and could get benefits if:
1. You entered the Allegheny County Jail; AND
2. You were placed in the custody of the Allegheny County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors; summary offenses; traffic infractions; civil commitments or other minor crimes; or bench warrants or probation violations where the underlying charge was a misdemeanor, summary offense or other minor crime; AND
3. You were strip searched upon entry to the Allegheny County Jail without reasonable cause; AND
4. You were strip searched during the period of July 13, 2004 through March 18, 2008.
What’s This About?
The lawsuit claims that the Defendant County of Allegheny unlawfully strip searched everyone admitted into the Allegheny County Jail on only minor charges. The County of Allegheny has denied those claims. Both sides agreed to the Settlement to ensure a resolution and to provide benefits to the people who were affected.
1

Case 2:06-cv-00927-TFM Document 151-1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 62 of 62
What Does the Settlement Provide?
Defendant agreed to pay a total of $3,000,000.00 to settle the case. That will pay for the claims of the Class Representatives, the administrative costs of the Settlement, an incentive award to the Class Representatives, and the attorneys’ fees and expenses. There are believed to be approximately 12,600 Class Members. You can only make one claim, even if you were strip searched more than once. Each Class Member who makes a claim will receive an equal share of the portion of the Settlement Fund allocated to pay the claims of members of the Class. Class Counsel anticipates, based on claims rates from other settlements, that all individuals who are members of will receive between $600.00 and $900.00 as a settlement payment. These amounts are dependent on how many claims are received by the Claims Administrator during the claims period, and are subject to change based the number of claims received. No amount is guaranteed.
How Do You Ask For A Payment?
A detailed Notice and Claim Form package contains everything you need. Just call 1-800-XXX-XXXX or visit the settlement website, XXXXXXX, to get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form. Claim forms are due by [insert date], 2010.
What Are Your Other Options?
If you want to share in the Settlement, all you need to do is obtain a Claim Form, as just explained, and return it according to its directions. If you don’t want the Settlement benefits or don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by [insert date] 2010. If you exclude yourself, you can’t get any benefits from this Settlement, but you could bring a separate case against the Defendant, if you want to. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by [insert date] 2010. The detailed notice, available by calling or visiting the website below, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The court will hold a hearing in this case (Delandro, et al. v. County of Allegheny, Case No. 2:06-cv-927 on [insert date], to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members (D. Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce and Associates, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Mason, LLP, Washington, DC; The Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC, Amsterdam, New York; and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Christopher Hayes) for attorneys’ fees and costs. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to. For more information, call toll free 1-800-000-0000, visit the Settlement Website [INSERT], or write to Settlement, P.O Box X, City, State, 00000.
2

 
 CaseC: 1a2s-e228:5046-cvD-0o0c9u2m7e-TnFt:M003D1o1c1u1m77e6n8t 6199 PaFgiled: 103/20D/a1t3e FPilaegde: 012o/2f62/2013

GLD-134

February 22, 2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C.A. No. 12-2854

HARRY DELANDRO; KAREN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated

vs.

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

THOMAS CROCK*, Appellant (*Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 12(a))

(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 06-cv-00927)

Present: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

Submitted are:

(1) Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis;

(2) By the Clerk, the within appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or possible summary action pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6; and

(3) Appellant’s argument in support of appeal

in the above-captioned case

Respectfully,

Clerk

MMW/JDM/pdb ________________________________ORDER_________________________________ Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s June 1, 2012, order for abuse of discretion. See Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 658 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2011); In re Airline Ticket Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 307 F.3d 679, 682 (8th Cir. 2002). After a careful review of the record, we discern no error in the District Court’s

CaseC: 1a2s-e228:5046-cvD-0o0c9u2m7e-TnFt:M003D1o1c1u1m77e6n8t 6199 PaFgiled: 203/20D/a1t3e FPilaegde: 022o/2f62/2013

decision to approve class counsel’s request to distribute the residual settlement funds to the cy pres beneficiary, which is in accord with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. See also In re Baby Products Antitrust Litig., --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 599662, at *5 (3d Cir. Feb. 19, 2013) (“cy pres distributions are most appropriate where further individual distributions are economically infeasible”). Appellant’s objections to the cy pres distribution are untimely and unsupported. Consequently, we hereby summarily affirm the District Court’s order because this appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
By the Court,

Dated: February 26, 2013 PDB/cc: Thomas Crock
Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. Craig E. Maravich, Esq.

/s/ D. Michael Fisher Circuit Judge

Certified as a true copy and issued in lieu
of a formal mandate on March 20, 2013
Teste: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2

 
 Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 81061 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
Harry DELANDRO and Debra Maloy, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 06-927. | Jan. 8, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
D. Aaron Rihn, Peirce Law Offices, Pittsburgh, PA, Daniel C. Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Carl B. Zacharia, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, United States District Judge.
*1 AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2007, after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the above-captioned case, and after the defendants submitted a motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and after a Report and Recommendation was issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties were granted thirteen days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the pleadings, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or for summary judgment (Document No. 8), treated as a motion to dismiss, is denied.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT C. MITCHELL, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Recommendation: It is respectfully recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or for summary judgment (Document No. 8), treated as a motion to dismiss, be denied.

II. Report: Presently before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For reasons discussed below, we will treat the defendants’ motion as one to dismiss the amended complaint and recommend that it be denied.
The plaintiffs, Harry Delandro and Debra Maloy, have filed an amended civil rights complaint against defendants Allegheny County and several officials of the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”), namely: ACJ Warden Ramon Rustin, ACJ Deputy Wardens Edward Urban, Gregory Grogan and Lance Bohn, and ACJ Assistant Deputy Warden William Emerick. The plaintiffs complain that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches, as they were subjected to unreasonable strip searches at ACJ after being charged with non-felony offenses.
According to the plaintiffs, Allegheny County’s Bureau of Corrections has a policy and practice of strip searching all individuals entering ACJ who are placed in jail clothing, regardless of their criminal charge, and without reasonable suspicion to believe they are concealing a weapon or contraband. This policy is said to be derived from written procedures of Allegheny County’s Bureau of Corrections and promulgated by the individual defendants.
With respect to plaintiff Harry Delandro, it is alleged that on the night of April 19, 2006, he was arrested at his home on non-felony charges1; that his arrest lacked any reasonable suspicion that he harbored weapons or contraband; that he was placed in a holding cell for the night, and the following morning, he was provided with jail clothes and strip searched; that the next day, he was taken to processing so he could prepare to go to Court, after which he saw a hearing officer who ordered that he be released; and that upon returning to ACJ, he was put in another holding cell and strip searched again, before he was released that evening.

1

It is alleged in the amended complaint that Delandro

was arrested for failing to pay child support, but jail

records show he was arrested for the offense of direct

criminal contempt.

1

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

*2 As to plaintiff Debra Maloy, it is alleged that on the morning of February 23, 2006, she was arrested on non-felony counts of making false reports to a law enforcement officer, driving with a suspended license, and careless driving2; that she was arraigned, denied bail and taken to ACJ; that she was subjected to an initial search and taken to a holding cell, where she remained for approximately seventeen hours; that the following day, she was strip searched by a female guard, at which time male detainees and another female detainee could view her body; and that six days after her arrest, she was released on her recognizance by a judge.

2

Jail records confirm that Maloy was arrested for the

offenses of false reports to a law enforcement officer,

driving with privileges suspended/revoked, and careless

driving.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a purported class of individuals who were charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and were strip searched upon entering ACJ. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for themselves and proposed class members, a declaratory judgment that the aforesaid policy and practice of Allegheny County is unconstitutional, and an injunction to bar the defendants from continuing their complained-of acts. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In response to the amended complaint, the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, or for summary judgment. They argue that Allegheny County has a policy for strip searches that is in conformity with the law, and that the strip searches of the named plaintiffs in this case was permissible.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558 (1979). In Wolfish, the Court stated:
The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case, it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.

Id. at 559.
In Wolfish, the Supreme Court reviewed a policy which subjected inmates including pretrial detainees to strip and body cavity searches after every contact visit with someone from outside the institution. In balancing the need for institutional safety with the intrusion upon an inmate’s personal rights, the Court in Wolfish explained: “[a] detention facility is a unique place fraught with serious security dangers. Smuggling of money, drugs, weapons, and other contraband is all too common an occurrence.” Id. However, “[w]e do not underestimate the degree to which these [strip] searches may invade the personal privacy of inmates.” Id. at 560. Recognizing that “a security guard may conduct the search in an abusive fashion”, the Court in Wolfish emphasized “[t]he searches must be conducted in a reasonable manner.” Id.

To be reasonable in light of Wolfish, Courts have concluded that “strip and visual body cavity searches must be justified by at least a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing contraband or weapons.” Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1997), citing Justice v. Peachtree City, 961 F.2d 188, 192 (11th Cir.1992); Masters v. Couch, 872 F.2d 1248, 1255 (6th Cir.1989); Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796, 802 (2d Cir.1986); Stewart v. Lubbock County, 767 F.2d 153, 156 (5th Cir.1985); Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 615 (9th Cir.1984); Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1273 (7th Cir.1983). Accord, Owens v. County of Delaware, 1996 WL 476616, *17-* 18 (E.D.Pa., Aug. 15, 1996), aff’d., 116 F.3d 469 (3d Cir.1997) (law enforcement personnel may conduct strip searches of arrestees “provided that they have reasonable suspicion that the individual possesses a weapon or is harboring contraband”); Ernst v. Borough of Fort Lee, 739 F.Supp. 220, 223-224 (D.N.J.1990) (citing cases).

*3 In support of their motion to dismiss, or for summary judgment, the defendants have submitted the policy of ACJ as it pertains to strip searches, as well as jail records of plaintiffs Delandro and Maloy.3 The April 12, 2000 policy of Allegheny County, which entails Administrative Directive # 16 (the “policy”), provides in pertinent part:

3

See, jail records of Harry Delandro and Debra Maloy,

and April 12, 2000 policy of Allegheny County, which

are attached as exhibits to the defendants’ brief

(Document No. 9).

New arrestees/pretrial detainees not charged with violent crimes may be strip searched, if there is reasonable belief, individualized suspicion, or knowledge that a detainee is carrying or concealing contraband. Individualized suspicion sufficient to warrant a strip search, may be based on such factors as
2

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

the nature of the offense, the detainee’s appearance and conduct or any prior arrest record, especially where there is a prior record of escape, drug related offenses or crimes committed by violence.4

4

See, the policy at p. 2.

The policy further provides: The search/strip search/visual body check should be conducted in an area where the prisoner is in view of only those officers in charge of the search/check and done in a professional and non-humiliating manner ...5

5

See, the policy at p. 3.

Our review of Allegheny County’s policy and the plaintiffs’ jail records does not compel us to assess the defendants’ current motion as one for summary judgment, for “a defendant may supplement the complaint by adding exhibits such as public records and other indisputedly authentic documents underlying the plaintiff’s claims.” Sentinel Trust Co. v. Universal Bonding Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 213, 216 (3d Cir.2003). Thus, we will treat the defendants’ motion as one to dismiss the amended complaint. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Shaev v.Saper, 320 F.3d 373, 375 (3d Cir.2003).
As gleaned from the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have instituted a “policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of [ACJ] and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and

without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband” (amended complaint at ¶ 29); that plaintiff Delandro was arrested on non-felony charges, and his arrest lacked any reasonable suspicion that he harbored any weapons or contraband, yet he was strip searched twice during his one day confinement at ACJ, and he was able to observe other individuals being strip searched while he awaited his turn to be searched (amended complaint at ¶ ¶ 37-45); and that plaintiff Maloy was arrested on non-felony charges and strip searched by a female guard after being placed in a holding cell at ACJ, but male detainees and another female detainee who was being strip searched next to Maloy could view her body during the search (amended complaint at ¶¶ 47-52).
*4 It is well settled that a municipality may be held liable for civil rights violations where conduct pursuant to its policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Accepting as true the allegations in the amended complaint, the plaintiffs have stated a viable claim that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches.
Therefore, it is recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or for summary judgment (Document No. 8), treated as a motion to dismiss, be denied.
Within thirteen (13) days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.
	  

3

 
 Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

2011 WL 2039099 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
Harry DELANDRO and Karen Murphy, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
The COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 06–927. | May 24, 2011.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Alexander E. Barnett, New York, NY, Alexandra C. Warren, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Alexandria, VA, Charles J. Laduca, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Gary E. Mason, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, The Mason Law Firm, Washington, DC, D. Aaron Rihn, Peirce Law Offices, Scott C. Weeber, Robert Peirce & Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, Daniel C. Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA, Elmer R. Keach, III, Law Offices of Elmer R. Keach, III, Amsterdam, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Craig E. Maravich, Michael H. Wojcik, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiffs’ have moved for the certification of a class for the purpose of settlement and final approval of the settlement in this case involving the policy of Allegheny County to strip-search all pretrial detainees upon admission to the Allegheny County Jail (ACJ). Class Counsel has also moved for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and expenses, and for an incentive award for the individually named Plaintiffs. After a fairness hearing conducted on March 1, 2011, the Court will grant these motions and will enter final judgment and an order of dismissal.
Background

A. Factual and Procedural History On November 8, 2007, plaintiffs Harry Delandro and Karen Murphy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a second amended class action complaint against Defendants Allegheny County and the following officials of the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”): Warden Ramon Rustin, Deputy Wardens Edward Urban, Gregory Grogan, and Lance Bohn, and Assistant Deputy Warden William Emerick.1 Plaintiffs complain that Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures for having been subjected to strip searches at ACJ after being charged with non-felony offenses pursuant to a policy or practice promulgated by Allegheny County.

1

Plaintiffs filed their first class action complaint on July

13, 2006. The first amended class action complaint was

filed on October 3, 2006. The individually named

Defendants were dismissed from this action on

December 2, 2009, and removed from the caption. See

Doc. No. 125.

Prior to March 18, 2008, the ACJ had a policy and practice of strip searching all individuals entering ACJ who were placed in jail clothing, regardless of their criminal charge and without reasonable suspicion to believe they were concealing a weapon or contraband (hereinafter, Allegheny County’s “former policy”). The former policy was said to be derived from written procedures of the ACJ and promulgated by the individual Defendants. To vindicate the alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures based on the former policy, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of themselves and a purported class of thousands of others who were strip searched at ACJ after having been charged with minor criminal offenses. Plaintiffs contend that Allegheny County’s former policy on uniform strip searches violated their civil rights.
Plaintiffs contend that on April 19, 2006, Harry Delandro was arrested in his home on a non-felony charge for failing to pay child support; that at the time of his arrest, Delandro was on crutches and wearing a foot mobilizer, and his arrest lacked any reasonable suspicion that he harbored weapons or contraband; that he was placed in a holding cell at ACJ for the night, and the following morning, he was provided with jail clothes and strip searched; and that the next day, he was taken to processing so he could prepare to go to court, after which he saw a hearing officer who ordered that he be released. Upon returning to ACJ, he was put in a holding cell where he was able to observe other individuals being strip searched while he waited for his turn to be strip searched;
1

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

and that he was again strip searched.

*2 Plaintiffs also contend that on August 25, 2005, Karen Murphy was arrested on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and harassment after placing a 911 call to operators requesting that police be sent to her father’s home to check on him; that at the time of her arrest, Ms. Murphy was wearing only her underwear and a tee shirt; that after she was booked into ACJ, Murphy was put in a holding cell were she remained for several hours; and that she was later strip searched during the course of a supervised shower.

In the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members, as well as a declaratory judgment that Allegheny County’s former policy and practice on strip searches was unconstitutional. On November 30, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and class certification. Doc. Nos. 65 & 66. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Defendants from illegally strip-searching all pretrial detainees entering custody at ACJ in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion. Id. In an Order dated March 18, 2008, and with the consent of the parties, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 85.

In an Order dated August 8, 2008, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the Class was defined as:

All persons who have been

incarcerated at the Allegheny

County Jail commencing on July

13, 2004 and continuing to March

18, 2008 who, after being charged

but not convicted of misdemeanors,

summary

offenses,

civil

commitments, and traffic

infractions as defined by the laws

of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, as well as parole or

probations violations where the

underlying offense is a

misdemeanor, summary offense or

traffic infraction who, pursuant to

the policy of Allegheny County,

have been strip searched upon their

entry into the Allegheny County

Jail without reasonable suspicion.

Doc. No. 99. The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement between the parties that Plaintiffs now seek to have approved contains the same definition of the Class. Doc. No. 151.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery. Upon the completion of which, on April 24, 2009 Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the constitutionality of the strip-search policy. Doc. No. 107. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs produced deposition testimony which confirmed that during the Class period, Defendants maintained a practice of conducting blanket strip and visual cavity searches on all pretrial detainees who were given a jail uniform and processed into the jail’s general population without individualized reasonable suspicion that they possessed a weapon or contraband. See Doc. No. 108 at pp. 2–5, citing the deposition testimony of the County’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b) (6) designee.
Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ motion a month later (Doc. No. 109) and filed their own motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 111), to which Plaintiffs responded (Doc. No. 116). Defendants argued in part that the search policy was justified by ACJ’s need for security and safety. They maintained that the policy was necessary to prevent detainees from smuggling contraband into the jail. See Doc. No. 112 at. They also argued that the searches were reasonable. Defendants further sought summary judgment for those claims directed at the individually named Defendants brought in their official capacity, as being a way of pleading against the government entity itself. In terms of any claim brought against the individual Defendants in their personal capacities, they argued summary judgment was appropriate based upon qualified immunity. In response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs did not agree that the individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, but did consent to the dismissal of the individual Defendants from the class action. Doc. No. 116 at p. 2.
*3 On December 2, 2009, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment of liability as to the County, and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the individual Defendants. Doc. No. 125. Following that order, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which ultimately resulted in a settlement agreement.

B. Settlement Agreement As noted above, the Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as follows:

All persons who have been

incarcerated at the Allegheny

County Jail commencing on July

13, 2004 and continuing to March

18, 2008 who, after being charged

but not convicted of misdemeanors,

summary

offenses,

civil

2

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

commitments and traffic infractions as defined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as parole or probation violations where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, summary offense or traffic infraction who, pursuant to the policy of Allegheny County, have been strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County jail without reasonable suspicion.

toll-free number. Copies of the class notice and claim form were to be available by request over the phone, and downloadable copies of the documents would be available at the website. The Settlement Agreement provided the method for class members to submit requests for exclusion in writing. It also provided the process for objecting to the settlement, including the reservation of the right to appeal final judgment of the settlement. Id. at 18.
The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by Order of Court on September 30, 2010.

Doc. No. 151, Settlement Agreement at 8. The Settlement Agreement recognized that the County had changed its policy to stop strip-searching all pretrial detainees on a blanket basis and to stop strip-searching misdemeanor detainees in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a weapon or contraband. Id. at 11. The Settlement Agreement states that the ACJ’s current written policy has been reviewed by the Allegheny County Law Department for compliance with state and federal law. The County maintains that the current policy is constitutional. The Settlement Agreement requires that all correction officers have access to the policy and are trained on search policy. The strip search policy will be posted in the intake area of the ACJ. Current and new corrections officers have been and will continue to be trained regarding the strip search policy and when strip searches may and may not be performed. See Settlement Agreement at 11.
The Settlement Agreement creates a fund in the amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) to compensate class members. Id. at 8. All administrative expenses, including the costs of settlement administration, website maintenance, notice to class members and attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and incentive awards are to be deducted from the settlement fund prior to determining the amount of distributions to class members. Id. at 12. Class counsel agreed that they would seek not more than thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the gross Settlement Fund as attorneys’ fees. Id. at 14. The Settlement Agreement also states that an award of $18,000.00 will be requested for each of the two (2) class representatives. Id. at 20. The Settlement Agreement provides that each class member who submits a timely claim form will be granted a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed $3,000.00 per class member. Any undistributed funds will be donated to Neighborhood Legal Services Association of Allegheny County, PA.
*4 Notice was to be provided by the direct mailing of class notice and a claim form to all identifiable individuals in the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement provides that notice would also be given by television advertisement. The settlement administrator was instructed to establish a website and maintain a

C. Notice to the Class The claims administrator attests that notice went out to 12,398 putative class members on November 29, 2010, by direct first class mail of the Class Notice and a claim form. See Doc. No. 158 at Exhibit A. All mail that was undeliverable because of inaccurate addresses was investigated by use of a locator database to ascertain the correct address and then re-mailed to the members of the class where possible. Id. 5,609 notices were returned as undeliverable, from which 3,254 notices were re-mailed after updated addresses were obtained.
The claims administrator also contracted with a website administrator to create a website that provided information to the class in both English and Spanish. The website administrator maintained the settlement website, www.alleghenystripsearch.com, which received 2,940 visitors, with the claim form having been viewed 1,862 times. A toll-free phone number was also established that handled incoming telephone calls and written correspondence from prospective class members. Id. Finally, the administrator provided notice through a limited notice campaign on television. See Doc. No. 151, Settlement Agreement.
D. The Response of the Class The claims administrator received 2,085 claims forms, none of which have yet to be validated. Of those, five members of the class have opted out, and one objector, April Taylor, has submitted a written objection to the proposed settlement. Ms. Taylor objects to the amount of the pro rata payout under the settlement. See Objection of April Taylor. She did not appear at the fairness hearing personally or by counsel.
The accumulated cost of the administrator for the services provided was $164,576.39. Of this amount, the administrator has billed and received $93,395.22, and has not yet requested payment for the unbilled amount of $71,181.17. Due to the volume and response of the class, the administrator anticipates spending an additional
3

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

$30,000.00 above the $235,000 originally projected as the class administration costs. Plaintiffs’ have requested that the Court award a total of $265,000 in administrative costs, with a credit/deduction for the $93,395.22 heretofore received by the administrator from class counsel.

447. It presented four factors for a court to consider in that balance: (1) the scope of the particular intrusion; (2) the manner in which it is conducted; (3) the justification for initiating it; and (4) the place in which it is conducted. See id . at 559, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447.

E. Attorney’s Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Awards *5 Class counsel have requested thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the gross Settlement Fund for attorney’s fees, which amounts to a payment of $1,000,000.00. See Doc. No. 159. Class counsel also seeks reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs and expenses of $155,030.91. Doc. No. 164. Finally, class counsel requests a special award of $18,000 for each of the two named class representatives. Doc. No. 159.
Discussion
The Court decides the following four questions:
1. whether the proposed class can be properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
2. whether notice to the class regarding the settlement and attorneys’ fees petition was adequate;
3. whether the settlement itself is fair, reasonable and adequate; and
4. whether class counsels’ petition for attorneys’ fees, out-of-pocket expenses and special awards to the class representatives should be approved.
As preliminary matter, the Court will discuss the law relating to the constitutionality of a strip-search policy such as that at issue here. The Supreme Court has held that a court must analyze a prison’s strip-search policy under the Fourth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In Bell, a federal short-term custodial facility had a policy to strip-search all pretrial detainees after a contact visit with an outside visitor. The Court found that, under the circumstances, the strip-searches conducted under the policy were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 559, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447.
In determining the reasonableness of a prison’s search policy, the Bell Court held that courts must balance the prison’s significant and legitimate interests in safety and security with the privacy interests of the individuals. See id. at 559–60, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d

The Court in Bell found that the prison’s policy was reasonable under this standard because the interest in preventing contraband from entering the prison facility outweighed the privacy interests of the inmates searched. The categorical reasonable suspicion that a prisoner might use contact with an outside visitor to smuggle contraband into the prison justified the privacy intrusion under the policy. See id. at 558, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447.
The holding in Bell was limited to the specific policy in question, and the Supreme Court left open the question of whether reasonable suspicion must be established to justify a policy to strip-search all incoming inmates or pretrial detainees. Since that time, however, Circuit Courts of Appeal and several district courts have addressed the issue.
Courts in most circuits have held that a policy to strip-search all pre-trial detainees is unconstitutional under Bell.2 These courts have interpreted Bell to require that a prison have reasonable suspicion that a particular arrestee is concealing weapons or other contraband before conducting a strip-search of that arrestee. Some of these courts have also concluded that Bell allows such reasonable suspicion to be established categorically for certain groups of prison detainees, such as those charged with felonies or violent or drug-related misdemeanors.3

2

See Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.3d 107 (1st

Cir.2001); Weber v. Dell, 804 F.2d 796 (2d Cir.1986),

cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1020, 107 S.Ct. 3263, 97 L.Ed.2d

762 (1987); Masters v. Crouch, 872 F.2d 1248, 1255

(6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 977, 110 S.Ct.

503, 107 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989); Jones v. Edwards, 770

F.2d 739 (8th Cir.1985); Stewart v. County of Lubbock,

767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S.

1066, 106 S.Ct. 1378, 89 L.Ed.2d 604 (1986); Hill v.

Bogans, 735 F.2d 391 (10th Cir.1984); Mary Beth G. v.

City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.1983); Logan

v. Shealy, 660 F.2d 1007 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied,

455 U.S. 942, 102 S.Ct. 1435, 71 L.Ed.2d 653 (1982).

3

See, e.g., Weber, 804 F.2d at 802; Masters, 872 F.2d at

1255; Mary Beth G., 723 F.2d at 1272.

*6 Recently, the proverbial tide has turned with respect to suits challenging the constitutionality of such policies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was
4

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

the first to break with the majority when, sitting en banc, it overruled its previous decisions on this issue. See Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.2008) (en banc ) (overruling Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.2001)). The court in Powell held that a blanket strip-search policy for all arrestees can be constitutional under Bell. It reasoned that the Bell balancing test allows for the interest of prison security to outweigh the individual privacy interests of detainees, regardless of whether there is reasonable suspicion that the particular arrestee is concealing weapons or contraband. See id. at 1309–12. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed suit when, also sitting en banc, it reversed prior precedent and upheld the San Francisco Sheriff’s policy authorizing strip searches of all arrestees before they are placed in the general population of a county jail. Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc ) (overruling Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1984)).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has very recently joined this trend. With the decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.2010), the Court applied the balancing test of Bell and held that the challenged policy of conducting strip searches of all arrestees upon their admission into the general prison population was reasonable, and that the jails were not required to provide evidence of attempted smuggling or discovered contraband as a justification for the policy. It is important to note that on September 15, 2010, six days before the Florence decision, Plaintiffs moved for the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement reached between the parties. See Doc. No. 153. Preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement was granted on September 30, 2010.
With that precedent in mind, the Plaintiffs in this case, therefore, would have to establish that the County’s policy was unconstitutional under the Bell standard. They must show that, under the Bell balancing test, the policy was unreasonable as applied to all persons arrested for misdemeanors and minor crimes, in addition to those charged with violence, drug, or weapons-related crimes and those with a previous felony or violence, drug, or weapons-related misdemeanor convictions.
A. Class certification A court presented with a request for approval of a class certification and settlement must separate its analysis of the class certification from its determination that the settlement is fair. See In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 579 F.3d 241, 257–58 (3d Cir.2009). To certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, a court must find that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one part of Rule 23(b) are met. See

Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 55 (3d Cir.1994).
*7 Here, the Settlement Class includes all individuals who were placed into custody at ACJ after being charged with misdemeanors or other minor crimes and were strip-searched upon entry into the general population of the institution. The class period commences on July 13, 2004 (which is two years prior to the date the original complaint was filed) and extends to, and includes, March 18, 2008 (the date the Defendants stopped enforcing the former policy).
On November 30, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Federal rules of Civil procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), or in the alternative 23(b)(2), seeking to certify a class consisting of all pretrial detainees who were placed into the custody of ACJ and strip searched after being charged with petty crimes under Defendants’ former strip search policy. See Doc. Nos. 65 & 66. On March 17 and 18, 2008, a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was held before United States Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. On June 18, 2008, Magistrate Judge Mitchell recommended that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted. Doc. No. 94. More specifically, Magistrate Judge Mitchell agreed with plaintiffs that the class satisfied the requirements under both Rule 23(b)(3) as a class entitled to monetary damages, and, in the alternative, as a class under Rule 23(b)(2) entitled to injunctive relief. Defendants objected to the Report and Recommendation on July 7, 2008. Doc. No. 97. On August 8, 2008, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted the motion for class certification. Doc. No. 99. Plaintiffs now seek certification of the class for settlement purposes. In view of this Court’s previous certification for the purpose of trial and the settlement agreement between the parties, the Court will consider final certification for settlement purposes.
1. Analysis Under Rule 23(a) Rule 23(a) requires that four requirements be met in order for a to be certified: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). The Court finds that the four requirements of Rule 23(a) are met.
a. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires a class to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Classes exceeding forty or more class members are generally held to meet the numerosity requirement. See Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226–227 (3d Cir.2001). The Settlement Class consists of potentially over 12,000
5

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

individuals. Currently, 2,085 of those individuals have submitted unverified claims forms. Because individual joinder of such a large class is impracticable, the Plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity requirement. As Magistrate Judge Mitchell noted in his Report and Recommendation, Defendants have not disputed that the numerosity requirement is satisfied. As such, the Court is satisfied that it has been met.
b. Commonality *8 Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. If class members share at least one question of law or fact in common, factual differences among the claims of the class members do not defeat certification. In re Prudential Ins. Co. America Sales Practice Litigation Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283, 310 (3d Cir.1998). In this case, there is a legal issue common to all class members, which itself is based on a set of common facts and legal questions, such as: whether Allegheny County utilized a strip search policy or practice at ACJ during the proposed class period; whether the County’s former policy violated the plaintiffs’ civil rights against unreasonable searches; and whether Allegheny County is directly responsible for the alleged violations of plaintiffs’ rights. This satisfies the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement.
c. Typicality and Adequacy Rule 23(a) (3) and (a)(4) require that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class and that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted that these two inquiries tend to merge because both evaluate the relation of the claims and the potential conflicts between the class representatives and the class in general. Beck v. Maximus, Inc., 457 F.3d 291, 296 (3d Cir.2006).
The typicality inquiry centers on whether the interests of the class representatives align with the interests of the absent class members such that the former is working towards the benefit of the class as a whole. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 311.
Two distinct inquiries comprise the adequacy requirement. See id. at 312. The first inquiry determines whether any significant antagonistic interests or conflicts exist between the class representatives and absent class members. The second inquiry looks to the experience and expertise of class counsel in representing the class. Id. If a court finds that a single class representative cannot represent the entire class, it may under Rule 23(c)(5) divide a class into subclasses where appropriate. When

class members have different claims or defenses or have conflicting or antagonistic interests, subclasses are appropriate. Each subclass is then to be treated as a class within the rule, and each must have its own representative. See id. at 312; Amchem, 521 U.S. at 627, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689.
In this case, the typicality requirement and the first inquiry regarding the adequacy requirement are easily satisfied, as all claims within the class are based upon the same blanket strip-search policy and practice. Similarly, the second inquiry regarding adequacy, that of the adequacy of representation, is also satisfied, as the class is represented by counsel who not only have experience in complex civil rights litigation, but also a successful history with class action litigation involving this very issue.
*9 For these reasons, the Court finds that the four requirements of Rule 23(a), numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are met in this case.
2. Analysis under Rule 23(b) Once a court determines that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, it must consider whether the action is maintainable under one of the three parts of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs continue to maintain that the class be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
Rule 23(b)(3) allows certification only if the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and if a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. This is commonly broken out into the so-called “predominance” and “superiority” requirements. See In re: Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 579 F.3d at 258–59.
Rule 23(b)(3) also provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to aid the court in determining whether a class action is the best method of adjudication: (1) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (2) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (3) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (4) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Although the fourth factor has been held to be not relevant in a settlement-only class certification, the other requirements of the rule “demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689.
6

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

a. Predominance Under Rule 23(b)(3), a court must determine that common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Predominance is found when common questions represent a significant part of the case and can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication. See 7AA Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1778 (3d ed.2005). It “trains on the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy.” Amchem Products, 521 U.S. at 623. To establish predominance, Plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of their claim can be proven by evidence common to all in their class. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311–12 (3d Cir.2008).
The common factual and legal issues applicable to each class member recited above predominate over individual claims. Evidence of the circumstances of each individual search would not be necessary to prove this claim. The Court finds that the common questions of the constitutionality of the County’s blanket strip-search policy as applied to members of the settlement class meets the predominance requirement. Cf. Boone v. City of Philadelphia, 668 F.Supp.2d 693 (E.D.Pa.2009); Sutton v. Hopkins County, Ky., 2007 WL 119892, *6–*9 (W.D.Ky.2007); Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1, 5–7 (1st Cir.2004); Blihovde v. St. Croix County, Wis, 219 F.R.D. 607, 620–22 (W.D.Wis.2003); Maneely v. City of Newburgh, 208 F.R.D. 69, 76–77 (S.D.N.Y.2002). The predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) is therefore satisfied.
b. Superiority *10 Under the superiority requirement, a court asks whether a class action, rather than individual litigation, is the best method for achieving a fair and efficient adjudication. See Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.2001). A class action in this case saves the time, effort and expense of litigating the claims of as many as 12,000 class members individually and guarantees uniform treatment of individual class members. Just as this Court previously found that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating this case given the nature of the suit, the approval of the settlement is superior to the individual adjudication of claims for compensatory relief. To that end, the Court notes that settlement will afford class members with the ability to obtain prompt, predictable and certain compensatory relief.
In sum, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met, the Court hereby certifies the class for settlement purposes.

B. Notice regarding the settlement and attorneys’ fees petition Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), notice must be given to potential class members by the best notice practicable under the circumstances for all classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3). This includes individual notice to all potential class members that can be identified through reasonable effort. Notice must utilize clear, concise and plain language, and further state: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues or defenses; (iv) the class member’s right to enter an appearance by an attorney; (v) the class member’s right to be excluded from the class; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of settlement on class members. See Rule 23(c)(2)(B). A court must determine that notice was appropriate before evaluating the merits of the settlement itself. See, e.g., In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 326–27. In this case, the notice given met the requirements of Rule 25(c)(2)(B). The notice, in all of the forms in which it was disseminated, described the proposed settlement, its terms, and the nature of the claim filed on behalf of the class. It also described the class members’ right to object or to be excluded from the settlement, including their opportunity to be heard at the fairness hearing, and the binding effect of the settlement on those who choose not to opt out. Individual notice forms were mailed to 12,398 identified class members. Those notifications that were returned as undeliverable were re-sent if another address could be found using the locator database. Notice was also provided by way of a wesite and limited televison advertisements. Because individual notices were sent to all identified class members and because the notice was widely disseminated over the internet and through televison broadcasts, the Court finds that the efforts to provide notice under the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) have been met.
C. Approval of the Settlement as Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate *11 In order to approve a class settlement, a court must find that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the class under Rule 23(e). In re General Motors Corp. Pick–Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir.1995). When considering a class settlement, the “court plays the important role of protector of the [absent class members’] interests, in a sort of fiduciary capacity.” Id.
In Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir.1975), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit set forth the following nine specific factors that a district court should consider in determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate: (1) the complexity, expense and likely
7

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. Id. at 157.
Applying these factors, the Court is satisfied that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class members.
1. Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages The risks of establishing liability and the risk of establishing damages (the fourth and fifth factors) will be addressed first because these two factors require close attention in view of the Florence decision. Given that decision, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they face risks in establishing liability. Such risks support approval of the settlement. See Prudential II, 148 F.3d at 321.
Even if Plaintiffs were able to establish liability, the amount of damages owed would present a challenge to Plaintiffs. Calculating the value of the plaintiffs’ claims will depend upon a number of variables, including the circumstances and severity of the search and the effect of the search on the class members. As such, the consideration of damages also weighs towards settlement.
2. Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation The first Girsh factor, the complexity, expense, and duration of the litigation, weighs towards settlement in this case. At trial, Plaintiffs would face the task of proving the unconstitutionality of the Defendant’s policy, which would be complex, expensive and in light of Florence, risky. These facts make settlement the best option under the first Girsh factor.
3. Reaction of the Class to the Settlement The second factor, reaction of the class, also favors approval of the settlement. Out of over 12,000 potential class members, only one has formally objected. A low number of objectors compared to the number of potential class members creates a strong presumption in favor of approving the settlement. See In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, 234–35 (3d Cir.2001). Moreover, only five class members chose to opt out of the

class. The fact that so few potential class members objected to or opted out of the settlement supports a finding of general acceptance of the settlement in the class.
4. Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed *12 The third factor, the stage of the proceeding and the amount of discovery, similarly weighs towards acceptance of the settlement. Post-discovery settlements such as this are more likely to reflect the true value of the claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Bolger, 2 F.3d 1304 (3d Cir.1993). Discovery has been extensive here, with numerous depositions taken and hundreds of documents reviewed by the parties. The discovery and other investigations that the parties have undertaken render them sufficiently informed to make a determination about the fairness of a settlement.
5. Risks of Maintaining the Class Action through Trial and the Ability of the Defendants to withstand greater judgment The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that given the Florence decision, the risks of maintaining a class through trial support approval of the settlement. See Prudential II, 148 F.3d at 321. There is always a risk of decertification in any class action. “Consistent with this reality, we are satisfied that the inherent difficulties of bringing a class action to trial weighs in favor of approving the settlements.” In re Automotive Refining Paint Antitrust Litigation, 617 F.Supp.2d at 344.
In terms of the County’s ability to withstand a greater judgment, the Court notes that while it did not take any part in the negotiations for settlement, it was apprised that one of the significant factors was the County’s current financial situation. See Doc. No. 160 (describing the negotiations between the parties taking into account the financial condition of the County); see also, settlement agreement at § III.B.3. detailing the installment arrangement for the County’s funding of the settlement fund). Taking these representations into account as representative of the County’s current financial situation, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do have a degree of cause for concern about the ability of Defendant to allocate its resources to a greater judgment, which weighs in favor of settlement.
6. Reasonableness of the Settlement in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation Finally, the eighth and ninth factors, the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible recovery and
8

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

the attendant risks of litigation, support approval of the settlement. The reasonableness of a proposed settlement depends in part upon a comparison of the present value of the damages the plaintiffs would recover if successful, discounted by the risks of not prevailing. In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 806. Counsel for Plaintiffs project that each class member will receive approximately $662.77. Should the class proceed through litigation on the heels of the Florence decision, there is a relatively obvious risk of recovery at trial. Taken together, these factors weigh in favor of settlement.
After applying the Girsh factors, the Court concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) as al factors weigh in favor of settlement. For the hereinabove stated reasons, the Court approves the settlement under Rule 23(e).
D. Attorneys’ Fees Petition *13 Class counsel in a class action who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a fair and reasonable award of attorneys’ fees from the fund as a whole. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). Class counsel calculate their fee award using the percentage-of-recovery method, which is the favored method in common fund cases. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 333. They also use the alternative method of fee calculation, the lodestar method, as a cross-check in order to ensure that the fee amount is reasonable. See, e.g., In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 579 F.3d at 280–81.
As a result of these calculations, class counsel seek an award of attorneys’ fees of thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the gross settlement fund, which would amount to an award of $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. Doc. No. 159. Class Counsel also seek reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and expenses in an amount of $155,030.91, and an incentive award to each of the class representatives of $18,000 apiece.
The Court finds that all of these requests are reasonable with one caveat. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Class Counsels’ motion for attorneys’ fees based upon a percentage of the total amount of the settlement fund, and will award fees in an amount of thirty percent (30%) of the fund.
1. Reasonableness of the fees When the percentage-of-recovery method is utilized to determine attorneys’ fees in a common fund case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requires a district court to consider seven factors in determining the

reasonableness of the fee. Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir.2000). These factors are: (1) the size of the fund created and the number of persons benefitted; (2) the presence or absence of substantial objections by members of the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel; (3) the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved; (4) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (5) the risk of nonpayment; (6) the amount of time devoted to the case by plaintiffs’ counsel; and (7) the awards in similar cases. Gunter, 223 F.3d at 195 n. 1.
The first Gunter factor, the size of the fund created and number of persons benefitted, favors the fee requested, as class counsel were able to obtain a reasonably sizable result, $3,000,000.00, for a potential class of 12,600 individuals. The second factor, the number of substantial objections, also weighs in favor of class counsel. Only one objection has been formally filed to the settlement generally and only five potential class members have opted out. The skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved also supports approval of the attorneys’ fee request. Class counsel are highly skilled in this area of the law and have conducted numerous other strip-search class actions. The submissions of record and presentations in this case were thorough and well-prepared. As such, the skill and efficiency of the legal representation in this action by class counsel support the reasonableness of a fee request.
*14 The fourth and fifth factors, the complexity and duration of the litigation and the risk of nonpayment, also support approval of class counsels’ fee request. As discussed above, this case involved a complicated issue of constitutional law that was litigated during a time of increasing uncertainty on the issue at hand. The professional services of class counsel were performed on a contingent basis, and the costs and expenses advanced by counsel have not yet been reimbursed. Further, there was a clear risk of nonpayment with this litigation given the precedent of the Florence decision. Accordingly, a fee award is reasonable for the time, effort and risk involved.
While the sixth factor, the amount of time devoted by counsel, supports the fee amount, it does so to a slightly lesser extent. Class counsel documents 2,744.75 hours of contingent attorney services on this litigation to justify the amount requested in their petition. While this process has required more than four years of chronological time, the Court notes that a review of the procedural history within this span of time includes time dedicated by Plaintiffs to amend their complaint on two occasions, as well as numerous requests for extensions of time for various filing due dates. The Court is also mindful of the fact that while Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 107) was granted in part and denied in part, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 111) was also granted in part and denied in part. See Doc.
9

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

No. 125.
Further, the Court cannot consider each factor in a vacuum. Just as the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved (the third Gunter factor) may lend support to a request for fees, in this case, that skill has a slight dampening effect on the amount of time devoted by counsel to pursue the cause of action (the sixth factor). While being thorough may be a hallmark of professionalism, the line between thoroughness and being too thorough for the purpose of a fee award is difficult to delineate. In such cases, the greater the skill brought to the civil action by counsel, when coupled with the remarkably similar issues involved and positions advanced in many other class actions by the same counsel, somewhat qualifies the amount of time devoted by counsel to each individual action.
In considering the seventh Gunter factor, the awards in similar cases, the Court finds that a percentage of thirty percent (30 %), as opposed to the requested thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) is more consistent with, and is in fact identical to, the percentage awarded in a number of other strip-search class action settlements in this Circuit. See, Boone v. City of Philadelphia, 668 F.Supp.2d 693, 714–15 (E.D.Pa.2009); Suggs v. Cumberland County, 1:06–cv–87 (D.N.J.); Boiselle v. Mercer County, 3:06–cv–2065 (D.N.J.); Clark v. County of Salem, 07–cv–2259 (D.N.J.); see also, Hicks v. County of Camden, 1:05–cv–1854 (D.N.J.) (approving a 27.5% fee percentage). The Court sees nothing in this case that is fundamentally different from these referenced cases which would warrant a higher percentage fee than that previously awarded. In support of their request for a higher percentage, counsel argues that “Unlike here, these cases settled well prior to Florence.” Doc. No. 159 at 11. While that may be the case, nevertheless, the parties presented the essential elements of the settlement agreement to the Court prior to the decision in Florence. That decision does weigh in favor of approval of the settlement under Rule 23(e), but the fact that the decision was rendered shortly after the parties agreed upon a settlement does not justify a higher percentage fee than the other strip search cases referenced.
*15 Here, the lodestar cross-check is neutral in terms of support for a percentage higher than thirty percent in the determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees. In a lodestar application, fee calculation is a function of multiplying the number of hours spent on the litigation by an appropriate hourly rate. See In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 819 n. 37. The Supreme Court has held that the “market rate in the relevant community” is the reasonable rate to use. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has adopted the community market rate rule in determining the lodestar. Student Pub. Interest Research Group v. AT & T Bell Lab. (“SPIRG”),

842 F.2d 1436, 1448 (3d Cir.1988). This rule requires courts to “assess the experience and skill of the attorneys and compare their rates to those of comparable lawyers in the private business sphere.” Id. at 1447.
Class Counsel originally presented a lodestar calculation of fees based on hourly rates ranging from $430.00 to $550.00 per hour. See Doc. No. 158. These rates appeared to be normal billing rates for the regions of three of the instant law firms, namely Philadelphia and Washington D.C. However, in counsels’ initial petition for fees, there was no evidence of the market rate for this community, namely Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Following the fairness hearing, class counsel filed a supplemental affirmation in support of the fee petition. To their credit, class counsel acknowledge the following:
Recent case authority from this Judicial District reflects that hourly rates for civil rights attorneys range from $130 to $385 per hour, depending upon the stature of the attorney.... Much of the work performed in this action was undertaken by senior attorneys with many years of class action experience. Without resubmitting recalculated records for all counsel, Class Counsel, for purposes of this submission, propose using a blended hourly rate of $280.00 per hour. At this hourly rate, Class Counsel’s lodestar would be $768,530.00.
Doc. No. 164. The Court agrees with class counsel regarding the market rates for this region, and further accepts the proposed lodestar calculation with the blended hourly rate. A lodestar of $768,530.00 would result in the application of a multiplier of 1.3 if the Court were to award the thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) requested by class counsel. Whereas the multiplier will be 1.17 in an award of thirty percent (30%). Although an applied multiplier need not fall within any pre-defined range, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted that multipliers ranging from one to four are reasonable and frequently awarded in common fund cases when the lodestar method is applied. See In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 341. Because either of the referenced multipliers are within the reasonably accepted range, the lodestar cross-check is neutral in terms of the reasonableness of a thirty percent (30%) award of counsel fees, as opposed to a thirty three and one third percent (33 1/3%) award.
2. Reimbursement of Out–of–Pocket Expenses 10

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

*16 Additionally, class counsel seek reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and expenses advanced in this litigation in the amount of $155,030.91. See Doc. No. 164. Class counsel has provided a breakdown for each firm or lawyer of said costs and expenses by category, i.e, postage, mail and courier services; photocopying; telephone and facsimile; filing and litigation fees; transportation, hotels, and meals; publications; research; and assessments for class fund administration. The expense totals for each category appear to be reasonable for a large, complex, multi-year litigation such as this case.
Finally, class counsel has requested that the Court grant $265,000.00 to the administrator for class administration costs. This request is not unreasonable under the circumstances of this matter and will be granted subject to adjustment for the $93,395.22 heretofore billed and received by the administrator.
The Court therefore approves class counsels’ request for reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of $155,030.91 and an award of $265.000.00 to the claims administrator minus the amount above referenced as advanced to the administrator by Class Counsel.
3. Award to the Class Representatives Class counsel also requests a special incentive award of $18,000 for each named class representative. These awards, although high, are justified in view of the benefit to be realized by class members. The class representatives have accepted the public exposure of the fact that they have been placed into custody, charged with a crime, and strip searched. They do so for the benefit of the class, and the Court finds that these awards are reasonable compensation for the sacrifice of their anonymity.
Conclusion
For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel. Payments of class administration costs and incentive awards to each class representative are also approved. The Court hereby certifies the class for settlement purposes and approves the settlement in this class action as described in that motion.
Lastly, the Court acknowledges the STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS OF VERIFIED CLASS MEMBERS filed of record in this action on May 23, 2011, Doc. No. 168, which will be incorporated into this Court’s final

order.
An appropriate order granting final approval of class action settlement and judgment follows.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT
THIS CASE coming on for hearing before the Honorable Terrence F. McVerry, U.S.D.J. on March 1, 2011, pursuant to this Court’s Order of September 30, 2010, in order for this Court to conduct a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement between the Parties is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to address Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorney’s fees and costs; and the Settlement Class Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendant being represented by its attorney; AND THE COURT having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Plan, and Memorandum of Law submitted by Class Counsel, having received evidence at the hearing, having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendant, and having considered the submissions by Class Members, now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
*17 1. This action was commenced on July 13, 2006, as a Class Action.
2. After several years of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery and motion practice, and as a result of intensive, arm’s length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendant, including settlement conferences before former Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson, the Parties have reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendant (“Settlement Agreement”). The resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on September 30, 2010.
3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Plan and Class Notice, which provided Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed Settlement. The Notice Plan provided an opportunity for Class Members to file objections to the Settlement, and an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement.
11

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

4. As of the deadline for the filing of objections, one objection was filed by April D. Taylor, who objected to the pro rata amount of the settlement for each claim. While this Court sympathizes with the experience of Ms. Taylor, her objection is overruled. Without this settlement, Ms. Taylor, like all other members of the class, face a legitimate risk of recovering nothing for their experience. Given the size of this Settlement, and the Notice Plan described above, this Court finds that the absence of any other objection is indicative of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement with the Defendant.
5. The settling Parties have filed with the Court an affidavit declaring that the mailing of the Court approved notice, consistent with the Notice Plan, has been completed.
6. The Court finds that the published notice, mailed notice and Internet posting constitute the best practicable notice of the Fairness Hearing, proposed Settlement, Class Counsel’s application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and Short Form Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Pennsylvania and any other applicable law.
7. Any persons who wished to be excluded from this action were provided an opportunity to “opt out” pursuant to the Notice. All persons who have validly excluded themselves from the action have no rights under the Settlement Agreement and shall not be bound by the Settlement Agreement or the final judgment herein and the names of those persons are set forth in Attachment A.
8. Settlement Class Members are bound by the: Settlement, Settlement Agreement, Release contained within the Settlement Agreement, Stipulation and Order Regarding Child Support Obligations of Verified Class Members, and the Final Order and Judgment. Settlement Class Members do not have a further opportunity to opt out of this Action.
*18 9. Any Class Member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Class Counsel’s application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.

10. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendant in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number of factors which the Court has considered in affirming this Settlement, including:
a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested;
b. This Settlement has the benefit of providing relief to Class Members now, without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously contested among the Parties to this litigation. This Settlement provides Class Members with a substantial monetary benefit; and,
c. This Settlement is clearly a product of hard fought litigation between the Parties, and not a result of any collusion on the part of Class Counsel or Counsel for the Defendant.
11. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendant their application for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel’s request and hereby grants the request for costs and expenses, and further grants the request for attorney’s fees as modified by the Court in the amount of thirty percent (30%) of the gross settlement fund ($900,000.00).
12. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a simplified process, and workable. In any event, the Court will retain jurisdiction to work out any unanticipated problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
13. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this proceeding.
14. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following Settlement Class is certified for purposes of final settlement:
Settlement Class:
12

Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011)

All persons who have been incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail commencing on July 13, 2004 and continuing to March 18, 2008 who, after being charged but not convicted of misdemeanors, summary offenses, civil commitments and traffic infractions as defined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as parole or probation violations where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, summary offense or traffic infraction who, pursuant to the policy of Allegheny County, have been strip searched upon their entry into the Allegheny County jail without reasonable suspicion.

*19 15. The Court finds that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, and that a Class Action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23 are present. The Class Members are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions of law and fact common to all Class Members predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one proceeding with respect to all Class Members. The Class Representatives’ claims are typical of those of the Class. The Class Action mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and resolving this action.

16. The class administration costs in the amount of $265,000.00, subject to adjustment for amounts heretofore paid, are approved for payment to the class administrator.

17. The Settlement Class Representatives, Harry Delandro and Karen Murphy, are entitled to and are hereby awarded a payment of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) apiece, in recognition of the efforts they undertook in connection with this litigation.

18. All Class Members who have made claims on

the settlement are entitled to receive their pro rata

share of the Settlement fund, however not to

exceed $3,000.00 per class member, after

administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, costs, and

expenses, and incentive awards are deducted from

the fund. Payments to class members are subject

to the STIPULATION AND ORDER

REGARDING

CHILD

SUPPORT

OBLIGATIONS OF VERIFIED CLASS

MEMBERS filed of record in this action on May

23, 2011, Doc. No. 168, which is hereby

incorporated into this Order by reference.
19. Any unawarded monies ultimately remaining in the settlement fund will be donated to the Neighborhood Legal Services Association of Allegheny County.
20. Class Counsel are qualified, experienced, and have aggressively litigated this case, thereby demonstrating their adequacy as counsel for the Settlement Class. D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire; Robert Peirce and Associates, P.C.; Daniel C. Levin, Esquire, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA; Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire and Alexandra Warren, Esquire of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire; Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, Amsterdam, New York; and Gary E. Mason, Esquire and Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire, Mason, LLP are hereby appointed as counsel for the Settlement Class.
21. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
22. The Court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel in an amount of thirty percent (30%) of the gross settlement fund is reasonable, and class counsel shall also be reimbursed for out-for-pocket costs and expenses as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
*20 1. The Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement is GRANTED.
2. All Class Members who have not timely filed an opt out request are barred and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any claim or action against the Defendant. Any Class Member who has not timely filed a request to exclude themselves shall be enjoined from initiating and/or proceeding as a class action in any forum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

13

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 1 of 29
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−00927−TFM

DELANDRO v. THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY Assigned to: Terrence F. McVerry Case in other court: USCA, 10−01139
Third Circuit, 12−02854 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

MICHAEL REY individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 10/04/2006

represented by D. Aaron Rihn Peirce Law Offices 707 Grant Street 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 281−7229 Fax: (412) 281−4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff HARRY DELANDRO

represented by Alexander E. Barnett 144 W. 72nd Street #3D New York, NY 10023 212−362−6174 Fax: 917−591−5227 Email: abarnett20@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexandra C. Warren Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca 106−A S. Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 789−3960 Email: awarren@cuneolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles J. LaDuca Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 202−789−3960 Fax: 202−789−1813 Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

D. Aaron Rihn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel C. Levin Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &Berman 510 Walnut Street Suite 500

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 2 of 29

Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 592−1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach , III Law Offices of Elmer R. Keach, III 1040 Riverfront Center P.O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 (518) 434−1718 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary E. Mason The Mason Law Firm 1225 19th Street NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429−2290 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas A. Migliaccio The Mason Law Firm 1225 19th Street, N.W. Suite # 500 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429−2290 Email: NMigliaccio@wbmllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott C. Weeber Robert Peirce &Associates 707 Grant Street 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 281−7229 Email: sweeber@peircelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
DEBRA MALOY individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 11/09/2007

represented by D. Aaron Rihn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel C. Levin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elmer R. Keach , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott C. Weeber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 3 of 29

V. Petitioner THOMAS D. CROCK
V. Intervenor Plaintiff KAREN MURPHY individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
V. Defendant THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

represented by Thomas D. Crock PO Box 16394 Pittsburgh, PA 15242 412−301−1878 Email: td1crock@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D. Aaron Rihn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elmer R. Keach , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carl B. Zacharia Zacharia &Brown 4500 Walnut Street McKeesport, PA 15132 (412) 751−5670 Fax: 412−754−2570 Email: czacharia@pittsburghelderlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Craig E. Maravich 300 Fort Pitt Commons Building 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 350−1150 Email: cmaravich@county.allegheny.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Deron Gabriel Allegheny County Law Department 300 Fort Pitt Commons 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 350−1166 Email: dgabriel@county.allegheny.pa.us TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H. Wojcik Allegheny County Law Department 300 Fort Pitt Commons 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 4 of 29

(412) 350−1120 Email: mwojcik@county.allegheny.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
RAMON C. RUSTIN individually and in his official capacity as Warden of the Allegheny County Jail TERMINATED: 12/03/2009

represented by Carl B. Zacharia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig E. Maravich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Deron Gabriel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Wojcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EDWARD D. URBAN individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail TERMINATED: 12/03/2009

represented by Carl B. Zacharia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig E. Maravich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Deron Gabriel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Wojcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GREGORY E. GROGAN individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail TERMINATED: 12/03/2009

represented by Carl B. Zacharia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig E. Maravich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 5 of 29

J. Deron Gabriel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Wojcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
LANCE E. BOHN individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail TERMINATED: 12/03/2009

represented by Carl B. Zacharia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig E. Maravich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Deron Gabriel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Wojcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WILLIAM L. EMERICK both individually and in his capacity as Assistant Deputy Warden of the Allegheny County Jail TERMINATED: 12/03/2009

represented by Carl B. Zacharia (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Craig E. Maravich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Deron Gabriel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Wojcik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant STEVEN ADDLESPURGER

represented by STEVEN ADDLESPURGER 1391 Noblestown Road Oakdale, PA 15071 PRO SE

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 6 of 29

Movant ALVIN MINOR
Movant PAUL CALIGUIRI

represented by ALVIN MINOR SCI Huntingdon 1100 Pike Street Huntingdon, PA 16654−1112 PRO SE
represented by PAUL CALIGUIRI HS−5158 SCI Forest Housing Unit G−A PO Box 945 Marienville, PA 16239 PRO SE

Date Filed 07/13/2006
07/13/2006 07/20/2006 09/11/2006
09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 10/02/2006 10/03/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT in Class Action against THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 06−4929), filed by MICHAEL REY. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Summons for Allegheny County # 3 Summons for Ramon C. Rustin # 4 Summons for Edward D. Urban # 5 Summons for Gregory E. Grogan # 6 Summons for Lance E. Bohn # 7 Summons for William L. Emerick # 8 Receipt #06−4929 for filing fee)(ksa) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
Summons Issued as to THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (ksa) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
2 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/20/2006. (kll) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
3 MOTION to Dismiss by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Zacharia, Carl) Modified on 9/12/2006 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 1 . ERROR: MULTIPLE RELIEF DOCUMENT FILED AS ONE RELIEF; RE−FILED BY COURT. (ksa) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
4 BRIEF in Support re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Zacharia, Carl) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
MOTION for Summary Judgment by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Filed with document 3 ) (ksa) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
5 ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 3 Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Response to the Motion is due by 10/2/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 9/12/2006. (mlb) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Complaint by MICHAEL REY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Complaint# 2 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 10/3/2006 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 1 (ksa). (Entered: 10/02/2006)
Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's Order or notice on the matter. ORDER granting 6 Motion to Amend Class Action Complaint to Substitute Class Representatives. The Amended Class Action Complaint, attached as Exhibit 1 to said Motion, is to be filed by the Clerk of

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 7 of 29

10/03/2006
10/03/2006 10/19/2006
10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/20/2006 10/23/2006
11/02/2006
11/02/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006

Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/3/2006. (mlb) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend Complaint ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. Attorney Rihn also advised of signature requirements for future reference since motion has already been ruled on. Document does not contain an s/ signature. Attorney Rihn is directed to file an amended complaint containing an s/ signature on the signature line. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
7 First AMENDED COMPLAINT in Class Action against all defendants, filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY.(Rihn, D.) Modified on 10/4/2006 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 10/03/2006)
8 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zacharia, Carl) Modified on 10/23/2006 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 7 ERROR: MULTIPLE RELIEF DOCUMENT FILED AS ONE RELIEF; RE−FILED BY COURT (ksa). (Entered: 10/19/2006)
9 BRIEF in Support re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Zacharia, Carl) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
MOTION for Summary Judgment by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Filed with document 8 ) (ksa) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
10 ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 8 Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment. Response to the Motion is due by 11/10/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/20/2006. (mlb) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint ERROR: Document not linked and Multiple Relief Document filed as one Relief; CORRECTION: Document linked and Motion for Summary Judgment re−filed correctly by Court. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
11 MOTION for attorney Daniel C. Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Daniel C. Levin in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice# 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing for Daniel C. Levine# 3 Proposed Order Motion to Admit Daniel C. Levine Pro Hac Vice)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 11/3/2006 Incorrect document attached at Attachment #2. Attorney Rihn contacted and advised to file an Errata and attach the correct document. Document removed from public view (ksa). (Entered: 11/02/2006)
12 Pro Hac Vice Fees received in the amount $ 40.00 receipt # 0661 re 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Daniel C. Levin. (klm). (Entered: 11/02/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 11 MOTION for attorney Daniel C. Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice ERROR: Incorrect document attached at Attachment #2. CORRECTION: Attorney advised to refile the document, using the Errata event and attach the correct document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
13 Errata re 11 MOTION for attorney Daniel C. Levin to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO Reason for Correction: Incorrect Exhibits Attached. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Levin's Declaration # 2 Exhibit Levin's Certificate of Good Standing # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 11/7/2006 to correct typos (ksa). (Entered: 11/06/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 8 of 29

11/10/2006 11/10/2006 11/13/2006
11/17/2006 12/07/2006
01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/10/2007

14 RESPONSE to Motion re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation of Aaron Rihn in Opposition # 2 Appendix Unreported Decisions # 3 Memorandum of Law # 4 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 11/13/2006 to correct typos (ksa). (Entered: 11/10/2006)
BRIEF in Opposition re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Filed with document 14 ) (ksa) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 14 Response to Motion, ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
TEXT ORDER granting 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 11/17/2006. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order on the matter. (kll) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: recommending that 8 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, GREGORY E. GROGAN, EDWARD D. URBAN, RAMON C. RUSTIN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK and LANCE E. BOHN, treated as a MOTION to Dismiss, be denied. Objections to RRdue by 12/26/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 12/7/2006. (mlb) Modified on 12/8/2006 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 12/07/2006)
16 MOTION for attorney Alexander E. Barnett to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Alexander E. Barnett # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing of Alexander E. Barnett # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 1/5/2007 to correct typos (ksa). (Entered: 01/04/2007)
17 MOTION for attorney Gary E. Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Gary Mason # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing of Gary Mason # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 1/5/2007 to correct typos (ksa). (Entered: 01/04/2007)
18 MOTION for attorney Alexandra C. Warren to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Alexandra Warren # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing of Alexandra Warren # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 1/5/2007 to correct typos (ksa). (Entered: 01/04/2007)
19 Pro Hac Vice Fees received in the amount $ 120.00 receipt # 1773 re 16 Motion for Alexander Barnett to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 18 Motion for Alexandra Warren to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 17 Motion for Gary E. Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice (eca) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
20 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations denying 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/8/2007. (kll) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael H. Wojcik on behalf of THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK (Wojcik, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 21 Notice of Appearance. ERROR: Typed name omitted by s/. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit with signature, using Errata event. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 01/10/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 9 of 29

01/11/2007 01/16/2007
01/29/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/21/2007 02/22/2007
02/22/2007 03/23/2007
03/30/2007 04/02/2007 05/01/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007

22 Errata re 21 Notice by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK Reason for Correction: signature line. (Wojcik, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
TEXT ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice., granting 17 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice., granting 18 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/16/2007. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order on the matter. (kll) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
23 NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney Appearance by J. Deron Gabriel on behalf of THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK Attorney Carl B. Zacharia terminated. (Gabriel, J.) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
24 MOTION for attorney Charles L. Laduca to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Charles Laduca # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 2/8/2007 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 02/07/2007)
25 Pro Hac Vice Fees received in the amount $40.00, receipt # 2425, re 24 Motion for Charles LaDuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (eca) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gabriel, J.) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's Order or notice on the matter. ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to file Response to Amended Complaint. Defendants' Response to the Amended Complaint is due by 3/30/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 2/22/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
Update Answer Deadline: Answer to Amended Complaint due 3/30/2007 from THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (mlb) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
27 NOTICE by MICHAEL REY, HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY of Change of Firm Name and Address for Alexander E. Barnett and Change of Firm Name for Gary E. Mason (Barnett, Alexander) Modified on 3/26/2007 to remove document from public view. Attorney Barnett advised it is his responsibility to maintain his account (ksa). (Entered: 03/23/2007)
28 ANSWER to Complaint by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK.(Gabriel, J.) Modified on 4/2/2007 to delete jury demand as none is requested in answer (ksa). (Entered: 03/30/2007)
29 NOTICE of Hearing: Initial Status Conference set for 5/3/2007 at 2:00 PM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
30 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN pursuant to Rule 26(f) by HARRY DELANDRO.(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell : Status Conference held on 5/3/2007. Class Action discovery ends 8/31/2007. A Status/Scheduling Conference is set for 8/27/2007 at 9:30 a.m. (mlb) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
Update Deadlines: Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. Class Action Discovery due by 8/31/2007. A Status/Scheduling Conference is set for 8/27/2007 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) Modified on 5/4/2007 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 05/03/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 10 of 29

05/07/2007 06/13/2007 06/22/2007 06/25/2007
06/26/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007 08/06/2007 08/15/2007 08/27/2007
08/27/2007
09/13/2007 09/13/2007
09/17/2007

32 NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney Appearance by Craig E. Maravich on behalf of THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK Attorney J. Deron Gabriel terminated. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
TEXT ORDER granting 24 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Charles Laduca. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/13/2007. Text only entry no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's notice on the matter. (kll) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
33 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures by HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's Order or notice on the matter. ORDER granting 33 Motion to Compel Defendants' Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures. Defendants are to provide plaintiffs with their initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures prior to the June 26, 2007 deposition of defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 6/25/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Elmer R. Keach, III on behalf of HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
35 MOTION for attorney Nicholas A. Migliaccio to Appear Pro Hac Vice by HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
36 Pro Hac Vice Fees received in the amount $ 40 receipt # 5301 re 35 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (ept) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
TEXT ORDER granting 35 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/6/2007. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order on the matter. (kll) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott C. Weeber on behalf of HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY (Weeber, Scott) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Status Conference held on 8/27/2007. Class Action discovery is extended to 10/27/2007. A Status Conference is set for 11/19/2007 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff's motions and briefs for class certification and a preliminary injunction are due by 11/27/2007. Defendants' responses to the motions are due by 1/15/2008. Reply briefs are due by 1/31/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
Update Deadlines: Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. Discovery on Class Action due by 10/27/2007. A Status Conference is set for 11/19/2007 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. Motions and Briefs in Support of Class Certification and a Preliminary Injunction are due by 11/27/2007. Briefs in Opposition are due by 1/15/2008. Reply briefs are due by 1/31/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Discovery Dispute Certificate # 2 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
40 BRIEF in Support re 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Exhibit F # 7 Exhibit G # 8 Exhibit H # 9 Exhibit I)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 9/14/2007 (sjs). (Entered: 09/13/2007)
TEXT ORDER denying 39 Motion to compel complete responses to plaintiffs' first requests for production of documents No. 4 and No. 8. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 9/17/2007. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue.

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 11 of 29

09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/28/2007 10/02/2007 10/10/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/23/2007 10/24/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007

This text−only entry constitutes the Court's Order or notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
41 MOTION for Reconsideration re Text Order of 9/17/2007, by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) Modified on 9/28/2007 document linkage corrected. Document linked to text order of 9/17/2007 (ksa). (Entered: 09/27/2007)
42 BRIEF in Support re 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re Text Order of 9/17/2007, filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Rihn, D.) Modified on 9/28/2007 to correct docket text (ksa). (Entered: 09/27/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Brief in Support of Motion, MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Brief in Support of Motion, ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
43 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants will provide a list of all individuals admitted to the jail on summary or misdemeanor offenses since 7/13/2004, as well as their last known contact information, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/2/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
44 MOTION to Compel Depositions by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Exhibit F # 7 Discovery Dispute Certificate # 8 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
45 ORDER granting 44 Motion to Compel the Production of Deposition Dates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/22/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
46 RESPONSE TO 43 ORDER OF COURT filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 10/23/2007 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 43 (ksa). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 46 Response To, ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
47 MOTION to Compel Discovery by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Certification and Notice for Filing Pretrial Motions Discovery Dispute # 2 Proposed Order of Court # 3 Exhibit A # 4 Exhibit B # 5 Exhibit C)(Maravich, Craig) Modified on 10/25/2007 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 10/24/2007)
48 MOTION for Reconsideration re 45 Order on Motion to Compel by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
49 RESPONSE to Motion re 47 MOTION to Compel Discovery, 48 MOTION for Reconsideration re 45 Order on Motion to Compel MOTION for Reconsideration re 45 Order on Motion to Compel filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
50 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated 10/22/2007. Depositions of plaintiffs shall occur on 10/29/2007. Depositions of Correction Officers shall occur on 10/30/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/25/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 12 of 29

10/25/2007 10/26/2007 10/26/2007 10/30/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007
11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007

51 ORDER dismissing as moot 47 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/25/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
52 MOTION to Compel Documents by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cestra Transcript # 2 Exhibit MacLellan Transcript # 3 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
53 BRIEF in Support re 52 MOTION to Compel Documents filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
54 ORDER granting 52 Motion to Compel Documents in accordance with this Court's Order of October 2, 2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/30/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
55 MOTION to Dismiss by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
56 BRIEF in Support re 55 MOTION to Dismiss filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
57 MOTION to Intervene, MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Amended Complaint by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rihn, D.) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
58 BRIEF in Support re 57 MOTION to Intervene MOTION to Amend/Correct 7 Amended Complaint filed by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
59 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Amend Complaint and Intervene Karen Murphy. Debra Malloy is withdrawn as a named plaintiff in this case and shall be replaced by Karen Murphy. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is to be filed within ten days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 11/8/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
TEXT ORDER dismissing as moot 55 Motion to Dismiss in light of 59 Court Order. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 11/8/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
60 Second AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO.(Rihn, D.) Modified on 11/9/2007 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
61 NOTICE by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Appendix)(Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Status Conference held on 11/19/2007. A hearing on plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification is set for 2/11/2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Court Reporter: none) (mlb) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
Hearing on plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification is set for 2/11/2008 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9B before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
63 MOTION to Extend Time to File Motions and Briefs in Support of Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 63 Motion to Extend Time for filing motions and briefs in support of class certification and a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs'

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 13 of 29

11/30/2007 11/30/2007
11/30/2007 12/03/2007 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008

motions and supporting briefs are due by 11/30/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 11/26/2007. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
64 MOTION to Consolidate Brief in Support of Class Certification and Brief in Support of Preliminary Injunction by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 12/3/2007 to correctly title motion (ksa). (Entered: 11/30/2007)
65 MOTION to Certify Class, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Keach Affirmation in Support of Motion # 2 Exhibit A −− Second Amended Class Action Complaint # 3 Exhibit B −− Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Allegheny County # 4 Exhibit C, Part 1 −− Paul Cestra (Allegheny County) Dep., pp. 1−88 # 5 Exhibit C, Part 2 −− Paul Cestra (Allegheny County) Deposition, pp. 89−181 # 6 Exhibit D −− John Colbert Deposition # 7 Exhibit E −− Joan MacLennan Deposition # 8 Exhibit F −− Lewis Wilson, Jr. Transcript # 9 Exhibit G −− Sandra Rugani Transcript # 10 Exhibit H −− David Younkins Transcript # 11 Exhibit H −− Allegheny Co. Directive No. 16 # 12 Exhibit J −− Allegheny Co. Policy Number 21 # 13 Exhibit K −− Decisions of Court Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss # 14 Exhibit L −− Firm Resumes, Proposed Class Counsel # 15 Exhibit M −− Preliminary Approval Order, McDaniel v. County of Schenectady # 16 Exhibit N −− Preliminary Approval Order, Kahler v. County of Rensselaer # 17 Exhibit O −− Bench Decision, Tyson v. City of New York # 18 Proposed Order # 19 Certificate of Service) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
66 BRIEF in Support re 65 MOTION to Certify Class MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 64 Motion to Consolidate their brief in support of class certification and brief in support of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs are permitted to file one brief in support of their motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 12/3/2007. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 65 Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 1/16/2008 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 65 (ksa). (Entered: 01/15/2008)
68 RESPONSE to Motion re 67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 65 Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendants' Response to the Motions are due by 1/25/2008. Plaintiff's Reply brief is due by 2/5/2008. The Hearing on the 65 Motions remains set for 2/11/2008 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 1/16/2008. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
Update Deadlines: Response to 65 Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction due by 1/25/2008. Reply brief due by 2/5/2008. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 14 of 29

01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/05/2008 02/06/2008
02/11/2008
03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008

informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
69 RESPONSE to Motion re 65 MOTION to Certify Class MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
70 Errata re 69 Response to Motion by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Reason for Correction: Adding Exhibit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 1/28/2008 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 69 (ksa). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
BRIEF in Opposition re 65 MOTION to Certify Class MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Filed with document 70 ) (ksa) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 70 Errata. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Brief in Opposition. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Telephone Conference held on 2/5/2008. A Mediation Conference is set for 2/11/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
72 REPLY BRIEF by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO re 65 Motion to Certify Class, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 69 Response to Motion filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO re 72 Reply Brief (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 73 Certificate of Service. ERROR: Certificate of Service filed as a separate document. CORRECTION: Certificates of service should not be filed as a separate document. They should just be another page to the document you are filing. A certificate of service is only required when an individual appears on the Notice of Electronic Filing under the filer will deliver by other means block. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
74 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Mediation Conference held on 2/11/2008. A hearing on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction is set for 3/17/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. Briefs on the issue of when the class term begins are due by 3/10/2008. Proposed or agreed−upon definitions of the class are due by 3/10/2008. The parties are to exchange witness lists by 2/19/2008. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) Modified on 2/14/2008 to add additional docket text (ksa). (Entered: 02/11/2008)
75 NOTICE of Statement of Position Concerning the Proposed Class Period and Proposed Class Definition by HARRY DELANDRO (Levin, Daniel) Modified on 3/11/2008 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 03/10/2008)
76 AMENDED DOCUMENT by HARRY DELANDRO. Amendment to 75 Notice (Other) Amended Order. (Levin, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
77 NOTICE of Defendants Proposed Class Definition and Brief on Class Term by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
BRIEF in Support of 75 Notice (Other) filed by HARRY DELANDRO. (Filed with document 75 ). (ksa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 15 of 29

03/11/2008
03/12/2008 03/12/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/18/2008

CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 75 Notice (Other). ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Brief in Support of Statement of Position Concerning the Proposed Class Period and Proposed Class Definition. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
78 MOTION to Exclude Testimony by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit A − Defendant's Response to RFPD # 4 Exhibit B − Letter to Maravich # 5 Exhibit C − Affidavit of D. Aaron Rihn) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 3/13/2008 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 03/12/2008)
BRIEF in Support re 78 MOTION to Exclude Testimony filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Filed with document 78 ) (ksa) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 78 MOTION to Exclude Testimony. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Brief in Support of Motion to Exclude Testimony. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion to exclude the testimony of Major James Donis, Captain Robyn McCall and Alan Kalmanoff at the March 17, 2008 hearing, unless they are made available for deposition prior to March 17, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 3/13/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
80 RESPONSE to Motion re 78 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 3/17/2008 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 03/14/2008)
81 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 Response to Motion, filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
MOTION for Reconsideration re 79 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motions referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Filed with Document 80 ) (ksa) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 80 Response to Motion. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Motion for Reconsideration. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
ORDER denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's 79 Order dated 3/13/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 3/14/2008. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Motion Hearing held on 3/17/2008 re 65 Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Motion Hearing is continued to 3/18/2008 at 9:00 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter: Sandy Wenger) (mlb) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
83 NOTICE of Firm Affiliation by HARRY DELANDRO (Barnett, Alexander) Modified on 3/19/2008 to correct typo (ksa). (Entered: 03/18/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 16 of 29

03/18/2008
03/18/2008 03/18/2008 03/19/2008 04/08/2008 04/09/2008 04/30/2008 05/05/2008
05/05/2008
05/06/2008 05/29/2008 06/16/2008

84 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Motion Hearing held on 3/18/2008 re 65 Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. Parties to try to ascertain size of potential class within 30 days. A Settlement Conference is set for 4/21/2008 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter: Sandy Wenger) (mlb) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
Update Deadlines: Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. A Settlement Conference is set for 4/21/2008 at 9:00 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
85 ORDER granting 65 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/18/2008. (kll) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
86 Exhibit and Witness List from Motions Hearing held on 3/17/2008 and 3/18/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
87 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority of Plaintiffs in Support of Plaintiffs' 65 Motion for Class Certification by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO (Levin, Daniel) Modified on 4/9/2008 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 65 (ksa). (Entered: 04/08/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 87 Notice (Other). ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
88 NOTICE of Change of Firm Affiliation and Change of Address for Alexander E. Barnett by MICHAEL REY, HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY (Barnett, Alexander) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing Proceedings held on 3/17/2008 before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Court Reporter: Sandra Wenger. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter/transcriber or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 5/14/2008, Transcript to be made public on 8/4/2008. (ksa) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Continued Motions Hearing Proceedings held on 3/18/2008 before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Court Reporter: Sandra Wenger. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter/transcriber or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 5/14/2008, Transcript to be made public on 8/4/2008. (ksa) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
91 NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING: The Settlement Conference originally set for 4/21/2008 is rescheduled for 5/27/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
92 NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING: The Settlement Conference previously set for 5/27/2008 is rescheduled for 6/16/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
93 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Settlement Conference held on 6/16/2008. A Settlement Conference is set for 6/25/2008 at 11:00 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) (Entered: 06/16/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 17 of 29

06/18/2008 06/25/2008 07/02/2008 07/07/2008 07/17/2008 07/18/2008 08/08/2008 08/20/2008 12/03/2008 12/10/2008 12/22/2008 12/22/2008
02/18/2009 02/18/2009 02/19/2009
02/19/2009

94 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: recommending that 65 Motion to Certify Class filed by HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY be granted. Objections to RRdue by 7/7/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 6/18/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
95 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Settlement Conference held on 6/25/2008. A Settlement Conference with the defendants is set for 7/3/2008 at 1:00 PM before Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
96 NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING: The Settlement Conference with defendants previously set for 7/3/2008 is rescheduled for 8/20/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
97 OBJECTIONS to 94 Report and Recommendation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
98 RESPONSE to Defendants' 97 Objections to Report and Recommendations filed by HARRY DELANDRO. (Levin, Daniel) Modified on 7/18/2008 document linkage corrected. Document linked to document 97 . (ksa) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 98 Response. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
99 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/8/2008. (kly) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Settlement Conference held on 8/20/2008. A meeting with defense representative and the County Executive to be scheduled. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
101 NOTICE of Hearing: A Telephone Status Conference is set for 12/23/2008 at 1:00 PM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
102 NOTICE RESCHEDULING HEARING: The Telephone Status Conference set for 12/23/2008 is rescheduled to 12/22/2008 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
103 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Kenneth Benson is appointed as mediator. Party KENNETH BENSON added. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 12/22/2008. (mlb) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/22/2008. If mediation is not successful, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/15/2009. Defendants' Response to the Motion is due by 3/8/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief is due by 3/18/2009. A Telephone Status Conference is set for 4/27/2009 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter: None) (mlb) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
105 MOTION to Extend Time to March 6, 2009 to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by HARRY DELANDRO, DEBRA MALOY. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Keach, Elmer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/19/2009: # 1 Proposed Order) (ksa, ). (Entered: 02/18/2009)
106 Proposed Order re 105 Motion to Extend Time by HARRY DELANDRO. (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 2/19/2009 to remove document from public view and add it as an attachment to document 105 . (ksa) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
ORDER granting 105 Motion to Extend Time for filing motion for partial summary judgment: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/6/2009; Defendants' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/27/2009; Plaintiffs' Reply due by 4/6/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 02/19/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (spc) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 106 Proposed Order. ERROR: Proposed Order filed as a separate document. Attorney Keach is advised

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 18 of 29

02/26/2009 03/18/2009 04/03/2009 04/15/2009 04/24/2009
04/24/2009 04/24/2009 04/27/2009

for future reference that all proposed orders are to be filed as an attachment to the motion they pertain to. CORRECTION: Proposed Order attached to appropriate Motion by Court. The incorrect submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
ORDER that at the joint request of the parties, the summary judgment deadline is extended for two weeks. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 3/20/2009. Defendants' Response to Summary Judgment is due by 4/10/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply brief is due by 4/20/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 2/26/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
ORDER extending the summary judgment deadline as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 4/1/2009. Defendants' Response to Summary Judgment is due by 4/22/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply brief is due by 5/4/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 3/18/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
ORDER extending the summary judgment deadline as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 4/24/2009. Defendants' Response to Summary Judgment is due by 5/24/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply brief is due by 6/4/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 4/3/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
ORDER: The telephone status conference set for April 27, 2009 is hereby cancelled. Signed by Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 04/15/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Mitchell, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
107 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Fact, # 2 Affirmation of Elmer Keach, # 3 Exhibit A −− Second Amended Class Action Complaint, # 4 Exhibit B −− Report and Recommendation, Order Denying Motion To Dismiss, # 5 Exhibit C −− Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, Allegheny County, # 6 Exhibit D, Part One −− Allegheny County (Cestra) Deposition, pp. 1−88, # 7 Exhibit D, Part Two −− Allegheny County (Cestra) Deposition, pp. 89 − 181, # 8 Exhibit E −− Allegheny County Administrative Directive Number 16, # 9 Exhibit F −− Allegheny County Department of Corrections Policy Number 21, # 10 Exhibit G −− Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Day One, # 11 Exhibit H, Part One −− Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Day Two, pp. 1 − 17, # 12 Exhibit H, Part Two −− Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Day Two, pp. 18−34, # 13 Exhibit I −− Colbert Deposition, # 14 Exhibit J −− MacLennon Deposition, # 15 Exhibit K −− Wilson Deposition, # 16 Exhibit L −− Rugani Deposition, # 17 Exhibit M −− Younkins Deposition, # 18 Exhibit N −− Delandro Deposition, # 19 Exhibit O −− Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, # 20 Exhibit P −− Report and Recommendation Granting Class Certification, # 21 Exhibit Q −− Order Granting Class Certification, # 22 Proposed Order) (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 4/27/2009 to add additional docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
108 BRIEF in Support re 107 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Unreported Decision −− Allison v. GEO Group) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 107 Motion for Summary Judgment, by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Filed with document 107 ) (ksa) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 107 Motion for Summary Judgment. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Concise Statement of Material Facts. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 19 of 29

05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009
06/04/2009 06/05/2009 06/26/2009 06/29/2009 07/06/2009

(Entered: 04/27/2009)
109 RESPONSE to Motion re 107 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
110 MOTION to File Evidence Under Seal by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 5/27/2009 to correctly title motion. (ksa) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
111 MOTION for Summary Judgment by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
112 BRIEF in Support re 111 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
113 CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 111 Motion for Summary Judgment, by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
114 ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 111 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Response to the Motion is due by 6/26/2009. Defendants' Reply brief is due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 5/27/2009. (mlb) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
ORDER granting 110 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Donis Deposition Exhibit A which purports to consist of a schematic floor plan of the intake area of the Allegheny County Jail. Defendants may file Donis Deposition Exhibit A under seal in accordance with Section 8 of this Court's Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 5/27/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
115 MOTION to Extend Time to File Reply Brief by HARRY DELANDRO. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
ORDER granting 115 Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Reply Brief in support of 107 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief is due by 6/26/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 6/5/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (mlb) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
116 BRIEF in Opposition re 111 Motion for Summary Judgment, and in further support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Number 107) filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Sanford School District Decision, # 2 Exhibit B −− Murphy Booking Sheet) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 116 Brief in Opposition to Motion. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
117 REPLY to 116 Brief in Opposition to Motion, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 20 of 29

09/01/2009
09/18/2009 09/23/2009
09/23/2009 09/28/2009 09/30/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/20/2009 12/02/2009

118 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: recommending that plaintiffs' 107 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on liability be granted as to the County of Allegheny and denied in all other respects, and that defendants' 111 Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to defendants Ramon Rustin, Edward Urban, Gregory Grogan, Lance Bohn and William Emerick and denied in all other respects. Objections to RRdue by 9/18/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 9/1/2009. (mlb) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
119 OBJECTIONS to 118 Report and Recommendation, by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
120 MOTION For Oral Hearing/Argument on 107 and 111 Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. Motion(s) referred to Robert C. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 9/28/2009 document linkage corrected. Document linked to documents 107 and 111 . (ksa) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
121 BRIEF in Support re 120 Motion for Oral Hearing/Argument on Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, RAMON C. RUSTIN, EDWARD D. URBAN, GREGORY E. GROGAN, LANCE E. BOHN, WILLIAM L. EMERICK. (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 9/29/2009. (tt) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 120 Motion for Oral Hearing/Argument on Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) Modified on 9/29/2009. (tt) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
122 RESPONSE to Motion re 120 Motion Requesting Oral Argument On Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 10/2/2009. (tt) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
123 BRIEF in Opposition to 119 Objections, filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 10/5/2009 ERROR: Wrong event selected. Document removed from public view and redocketed correctly. (ksa) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
124 RESPONSE to 119 Objections, filed by KAREN MURPHY, HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) "Document previously filed electronically" (ksa) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 123 Brief in Opposition − Other. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Re−docketed as Response (Other). This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
TEXT ORDER granting 120 Motion For Oral Argument on Cross−Motions For Summary Judgment. A hearing shall be held on 10/20/2009 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/5/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) Modified on 10/6/2009. (kly) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Oral Argument set for 10/20/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6C before Terrence F. McVerry. (kly) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Oral Argument held on 10/20/2009. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (Court Reporter: Sandra Wenger) (kly) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
125 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability; granting in part and denying in part 111

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 21 of 29

12/02/2009 12/04/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/30/2009
12/30/2009 01/04/2010 01/04/2010
01/05/2010 01/28/2010

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting Report and Recommendation re 118 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs shall file their pretrial statement on or before January 4, 2010 and Defendant shall file its pretrial statement on or before February 4, 2010. The Court will immediately thereafter schedule a pretrial conference and a trial date. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/2/2009. (kly) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
Defendants Pretrial Statement due by 2/4/2010. Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement due by 1/4/2010. (kly) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell no longer assigned to case. (mlb) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
126 MOTION Status Conference by HARRY DELANDRO. (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
TEXT ORDER granting 126 Motion For Status Conference. A Status Conference is hereby scheduled for 12/30/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/22/2009. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/30/2009 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Terrence F. McVerry. (kly) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 126 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Status Conference regarding the filing of Pretrial Narrative statements held on 12/30/2009. Oral Motion by both parties for an Extension of Time to File Pretrial Narrative Statements is hereby GRANTED. A Court Order will follow. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (Court Reporter: Virginia Pease) (kly) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
127 ORDER OF COURT: Plaintiffs' Pretrial Narrative Statement due by 2/15/2010. Defendant's Pretrial Narrative Statement due by 3/15/2010. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 12/30/2009. (kly) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
128 NOTICE OF APPEAL by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY re 125 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendations. (Wojcik, Michael) Modified on 1/5/2010. ERROR: Wrong event selected. Document removed from public view as it has been redocketed at document 129 . (ksa) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
129 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 125 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendations, by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. Filing fee $455, receipt number 03150000000001473693. Motion for IFP N/A. Certificate of Appealability N/A. Court Reporters: Sandy Wenger and Virginia Pease. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Wojcik, Michael) Modified on 1/5/2010 to add names of court reporters. (ksa) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 128 Notice (Other). ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Document was removed from public view as it has been redocketed as a Notice of Appeal at document 129 . This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
130 ORDER OF COURT: The parties are ORDERED to participate in another mediation session or sessions with Kenneth J. Benson, Esquire to be scheduled at Mr. Bensons earliest convenience. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/28/2010. (kly) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 22 of 29

02/16/2010 02/17/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010 03/03/2010 03/09/2010
03/10/2010
03/10/2010
03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/12/2010
03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010

132 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Submissions by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
133 ORDER granting 132 Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Statement. Plaintiffs' Pretrial Statement due by 2/23/2010. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 2/17/2010. (kly) (Entered: 02/17/2010)
134 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
135 Expert Report re 134 Pretrial Statement by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. Expert: Robert L. Tanenbaum, Ph.D. (Rihn, D.) Modified on 2/25/2010 to add name of expert (ksa). (Entered: 02/24/2010)
136 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 129 Notice of Appeal, by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY for proceedings held on 10/20/2009 before Judge McVerry, from Court Reporter: Sandra Wenger. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
137 MOTION to Provide Notice to the Class by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Proposed Class, # 2 Exhibit Notice Plan, # 3 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 3/10/2010. ERROR: Wrong event selected. Document removed from public view and will be redocketed after the appropriate motion is docketed. (ksa) (Entered: 03/09/2010)
TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 137 Motion to Provide Notice to the Class. Response to Motion due by 3/16/2010. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/10/2010. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 137 Motion to Provide Notice to the Class. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Attorney Rihn is directed to file a Motion to Provide Notice to the Class and then docket the brief in support of the motion. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
138 MOTION to Provide Class Notice by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
139 BRIEF in Support re 138 Motion to Provide Class Notice filed by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 138 Motion Provide Class Notice and 139 Brief in Support of Motion. Response to Motion due by 3/16/2010 Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/12/2010. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
140 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
141 Joint MOTION to Extend Time to Conduct expert depositions by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
142 ORDER granting 141 Motion to Extend Time for depositions of experts. The parties shall have until April 30, 2010 to conduct depositions of the experts. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/16/2010. (kly) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 4/23/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6C before Terrence F. McVerry. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
AMENDED TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for 4/23/2010 has been RESCHEDULED to 3/26/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6C before Terrence F. McVerry. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (kly) (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 23 of 29

03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/24/2010 03/26/2010 03/30/2010 03/30/2010 04/05/2010
04/06/2010 07/09/2010 09/10/2010 09/15/2010

03/16/2010)
143 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alexandra C. Warren (Warren, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
144 RESPONSE to Motion re 137 Motion to Provide Notice to the Class, 138 Motion to Provide Class Notice, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 3/18/2010. (tt) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
145 NOTICE to Court re 118 Report and Recommendation and 125 Order of Court by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 3/17/2010 document linkage corrected. Document linked to documents 118 and 125 . (ksa) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
Update Deadline: Expert Depositions to be completed by 4/30/2010 (kly) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 145 Notice (Other). ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION: Linked to appropriate documents. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
TEXT NOTICE Cancelling Hearing: Pretrial Conference scheduled for 3/26/2010 is cancelled. Text−only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
146 Document 146 stricken and removed as erroneously filed. Modified on 3/30/2010 to delete text of original docket entry. (ksa) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
147 Joint MOTION to Strike 146 Report of Mediation, Strike and Remove Erroneously Filed Mediator's Report by KENNETH J. BENSON, HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY, THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
148 ORDER granting 147 Joint Motion to Strike and Remove Erroneously Filed 146 Report of Mediation. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/30/2010. (cdb) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
149 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 20, 2009 before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Sandra Wenger, Official Court Reporter, Telephone number 412−261−6254. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 4/12/2010. Redaction Request due 4/26/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/6/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/6/2010. (sw, ) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
Record complete for Appeal purposes. (ksa) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
150 ORDER of USCA as to 129 Notice of Appeal, filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, Dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (carh3, ) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
151 NOTICE of Settlement of Class Action by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY (Attachments: # 1 Class Action Settlement Agreement) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
152 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. Responses due by 9/29/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support) (Keach, Elmer) Modified to remove from public view since the Memo is re−docketed correctly as 153 Brief (Memorandum of Law) in Support of 152 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on 9/17/2010 (jv). (Entered: 09/15/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 24 of 29

09/15/2010 09/16/2010
09/29/2010 09/30/2010 01/13/2011 01/24/2011 02/25/2011
02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/28/2011

153 BRIEF (Memorandum of Law) in Support re 152 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (jv) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 152 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. ERROR: Memorandum in Support of Motion should have been filed as a separate document. CORRECTION: Removed Attachment from public view and Attorney is advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as a separate document. Clerk of Court docketed 153 BRIEF (Memorandum of Law) in Support re 152 MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: Proposed Order was not attached. CORRECTION: Attorney is advised to file a proposed order by using the Proposed Order event and linking it to the 152 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 09/16/2010)
154 RESPONSE to Motion re 152 MOTION to Certify Class Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
155 ORDER OF COURT, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Fairness Hearing set for 3/1/2011 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6C before Terrence F. McVerry. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 9/30/2010. (kly) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
156 NOTICE Opting out of case by STEVEN ADDLESPURGER. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope Notice mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
157 NOTICE of Intention to Appear by MOLLY R. SHEROKE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope Notice mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
158 MOTION to Certify Class Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of Elmer Keach in Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit A −− Affirmation of Frank Barkan, Settlement Administrator, # 3 Exhibit B −− List of Opt Outs, # 4 Exhibit C −− Objection from Class Member, # 5 Envelope D −− Keach Fee Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit E −− Robert Peirce Fee Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit F −− Levin Fishbein Fee Affidavit, # 8 Exhibit G −− Mason LLP Fee Affidavit, # 9 Exhibit H −− Cuneo Gilbert Fee Affidavit) (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 2/28/2011 ERROR: MULTIPLE RELIEF DOCUMENT FILED AS ONE RELIEF; REFILED BY COURT. (ksa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
159 BRIEF in Support re 158 Motion to Certify Class, Memorandum Regarding Attorneys' Fees filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
160 BRIEF in Support re 158 Motion to Certify Class, Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of Settlement filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY re 158 Motion to Certify Class, 160 Brief in Support of Motion, 159 Brief in Support of Motion. (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 3/1/2011 to remove document from public view as it is for another case. (ksa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
MOTION for an Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Filed with document 158 ) (ksa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 158 Motion to Certify Class. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added/docketed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 25 of 29

02/28/2011 02/28/2011 03/01/2011 03/17/2011
03/17/2011 05/13/2011
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 05/24/2011 05/24/2011 05/27/2011 07/07/2011 07/07/2011 07/08/2011

162 SUPPLEMENT by HARRY DELANDRO and KAREN MURPHY to 158 Motion to Certify Class. (Rihn, D.) Modified on 3/1/2011 filers modified. (ksa) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY re 158 Motion to Certify Class, 160 Brief in Support of Motion, 159 Brief in Support of Motion Corrected Certificate of Service, Original Certificate Filed References Another Case. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 162 Supplement. ERROR: Incorrect filer selected. CORRECTION: Correct filer KAREN MURPHY properly linked to document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
164 AFFIDAVIT in Support re MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Supplemental Submission on Expenses Claimed by Class Counsel filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Mason LLP Supplemental Affirmation, # 2 Exhibit B −− Cuneo Gilbert Supplemental Affirmation, # 3 Exhibit C −− Levin Fishbein Supplemental Affirmation, # 4 Exhibit D −− Robert Peirce &Associates Supplemental Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E −− Keach Law Firm Supplemental Declaration) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
165 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY re 164 Affidavit in Support of Motion. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
166 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by ALVIN MINOR. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Entry of Claim to Participate in Proposed Settlement, Nunc Pro Tunc, # 2 Appendix of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Envelope Motions mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
167 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Child Support Issues by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 05/19/2011)
168 ORDER on 167 stipulation regarding child support obligations of verified class members. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/23/2011. (cdb) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
169 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/24/2011. (cdb) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
170 NOTICE of District Judge Option by Thomas Galloway. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope Document mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
171 ORDER denying 166 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 5/27/2011. (kly) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
172 MOTION for Order Directing Release of Prisoner Records by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 7/8/2011 ERROR: MULTIPLE RELIEF DOCUMENT FILED AS ONE RELIEF; REFILED BY COURT. (ksa) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
MOTION to Extend Time to Document Claim by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Filed with document 172 ) (ksa) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 172 MOTION for Order Directing Release of Prisoner Records. ERROR: MULTIPLE Relief Motion Filed as One Relief. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that Motions of this nature are to be filed using the Motion Event and clicking on all the reliefs sought in said motion. Clerk of Court added/docketed Motion to Extend Time to Document Claim. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) Modified name of misc relief motion on 7/11/2011. (jv) (Entered: 07/08/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 26 of 29

07/08/2011
07/11/2011 07/12/2011 07/20/2011 07/21/2011 07/27/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 08/03/2011 08/05/2011 08/05/2011 08/08/2011
08/16/2011

TEXT ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re Motion for: Order directing Release of Prisoner Records &Extension of Time to Document Claim. Counsel for Plaintiff's Class to Respond to Motion due by 7/21/2011. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/8/2011. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
173 MOTION for subpoena(s) proposed order w/in motion by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Crock, Thomas) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 173 MOTION for subpoena(s). ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
174 RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION to Extend Time to Document Claim for Thomas D. Crock filed by HARRY DELANDRO. (Rihn, D.) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
175 RESPONSE to Motion re 172 MOTION for Order Directing Release of Prisoner Records filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
176 MOTION to Extend Time Until Documentation is Provided by PAUL CALIGUIRI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Envelope Motion mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
TEXT ORDER. Response/Briefing Schedule re 176 Motion to Extend Time. Counsel for Plaintiff's Class to Respond to Motion by 8/5/2011. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/29/2011. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
177 SUPPLEMENT by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY to 175 Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit) (Maravich, Craig) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
178 ORDER OF COURT: denying 172 Motion for Order Directing Release of Prison Records &Extension of Time to Document Claim and denying 173 Request for Subpoena(s). Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/3/2011. (kly) (kly, ). (Entered: 08/03/2011)
179 RESPONSE, And Reconsideration. Proposed Order w/in Pleading to 177 Supplement, 178 Order on Motion for Order Directing Release of Prison Records, Order on Motion to Extend Time, filed by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit class member) (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 8/9/2011. (tt) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
MOTION for Reconsideration re 178 Order on Motion for Order Directing Release of Prison Records, Order on Motion to Extend Time, by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Filed with document 179 ) (ksa) Modified on 8/9/2011. (tt) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 179 Response. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Motion for Reconsideration. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 179 Response. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
180 Amended MOTION for Reconsideration re 175 Response to Motion, 177 Supplement, 178 Order on Motion to Reschedule Status Conference, Order on Motion to Extend Time, multiple relief sought; proposed order w/in pleading by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit corroborate claim, # 2 Exhibit

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 27 of 29

08/16/2011 08/17/2011 08/17/2011
08/23/2011 08/26/2011
10/25/2011 10/27/2011 01/05/2012 05/04/2012 05/04/2012
05/24/2012 05/25/2012

certificate of mailing) (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 8/25/2011. (tt) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
AMENDED DOCUMENT by THOMAS D. CROCK. Amendment to 179 Response. (Filed with document 180 ). (ksa) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
TEXT ORDER. Response/Briefing Schedule re 180 Motion for Reconsideration. Response to Motion due by 8/23/2011. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 8/17/2011. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 180 Motion for Reconsideration. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Amended document to docket amended response to motion. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 180 Motion for Reconsideration. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future PROPOSED ORDERS ARE TO BE MADE A SEPARATE PDF DOCUMENT AND FILED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE MOTION THEY PERTAIN TO. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
181 RESPONSE to Motion re 180 Amended MOTION for Reconsideration re 175 Response to Motion, 177 Supplement, 178 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Extend Time, multiple relief sought; proposed order w/in pleading filed by THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. (Maravich, Craig) Modified on 8/24/2011 to edit docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
182 RESPONSE; Preliminary pleading Re: Defts' [County] assertions in this matter to 175 Response to Motion, 180 Motion for Reconsideration, 181 Response to Motion, 177 Supplement, 178 Order on Motion for Order Directing Release of Prison Records &Extension of Time to Document Claim, Order on Motion to Extend Time, filed by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 8/30/2011. (tt) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
183 MOTION for Approval of Additional Fees to RSM McGladrey, Inc. by HARRY DELANDRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 10/26/2011 to correctly title motion. (ksa) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
184 ORDER denying 183 Motion for Approval of Additional Fees to RSM McGladrey, Inc. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/27/2011. (kly) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
185 MOTION to Retrieve Claim Without Further Court Action by PAUL CALIGUIRI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Envelope Motion mailed in) (ksa) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
186 PETITION for Approval of a Cy Pres Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds by KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rihn, D.) Modified on 5/7/2012 to correctly title petition. (ksa) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
187 Counter MOTION for Distribution of the Remaining Settlement Funds to the Class Members, w/ Cy Pres Distribution of any Residue re 186 MOTION Petition for Approval of a Cy Pres Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds filed by KAREN MURPHY by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Settlement Distribution to Class Members, &Cy Pres residue) (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 5/7/2012 to correctly title motion. (ksa) (Entered: 05/05/2012)
TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference with Plaintiff's counsel set for 5/30/2012 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 6C before Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (kly) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
188 ORDER denying 187 Motion CLASS MEMBERS PETITION for distribution of the remaining settlement funds to the Class Members, with CY PRES DISTRIBUTION OF any residue. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 28 of 29

05/31/2012 06/01/2012 06/29/2012
07/02/2012 07/03/2012
07/03/2012 07/03/2012 07/03/2012 07/05/2012
07/05/2012 07/06/2012 07/06/2012

5/25/2012. (kly) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Terrence F. McVerry: Status Conference with Plaintiff's Counsel held on 5/30/2012. Text only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice in the matter. (Court Reporter: Richard Ford) (kly) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
189 ORDER granting 186 Motion for Approval of a Cy Pres Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 6/1/2012. (kly) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
190 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 189 Order granting 186 Motion for Approval of a Cy Pres Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds, by THOMAS D. CROCK. Motion for IFP Pending. Certificate of Appealability N/A. Court Reporter(s): Richard Ford, Sandra Wenger, Virginia Pease. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Attachments: # 1 Application to appeal in forma pauperis) (tt) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
192 MOTION for Censure of Lead Counsel by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Crock, Thomas) Modified on 7/3/2012 to add additional docket text. (ksa) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 192 Motion for Censure of Lead Counsel. ERROR: Typed name omitted by s/. CORRECTION: Mr. Crock is advised of signature requirements. Mr. Crock to resubmit with signature, using Errata event. This message is for informational purposes only. CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Mr. Crock advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) Modified on 7/16/2012. (tt) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
193 MOTION to Require Class Member Thomas Crock to Provide Security in Amount Necessary to Ensure Payment of Costs on Appeal by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service) (Keach, Elmer) Modified on 7/5/2012 to correctly title motion. (ksa) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
194 MOTION for Censure, preliminary by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Crock, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
195 MOTION (amended) for censure, preliminary by THOMAS D. CROCK. (Crock, Thomas) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 195 Motion (amended) for censure, preliminary, 194 Motion for censure, preliminary. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Mr. Crock is again advised for the fifth time that in future proposed orders are to be made separate PDF documents and filed as attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (ksa) Modified on 7/16/2012. (tt) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
196 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 195 MOTION (amended) for censure, preliminary filed by HARRY DELANDRO, KAREN MURPHY. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service) (Keach, Elmer) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
197 MEMORANDUM ORDER re 190 Notice of Appeal and Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by THOMAS D. CROCK. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied with prejudice. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/6/2012. (cdb) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
198 ORDER denying 195 Motion (amended) for censure, preliminary. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 7/6/2012. (kly) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-927 As of: 05/08/2013 06:51 PM EDT 29 of 29

07/16/2012 03/20/2013 03/29/2013

NOTIFICATION TO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 197 Memorandum Order Denying Application to Proceed in forma pauperis. (tt) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
199 MANDATE of USCA as to 190 Notice of Appeal, filed by THOMAS D. CROCK, Affirming judgment/order of the district court. (Attachments: # 1 Mandate Letter) (pdb3, ) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
TEXT ORDER denying as moot 193 Motion for Bond. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/29/2013. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/29/2013)