Source: https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions?page=12
Timestamp: 2019-01-18 01:02:08
Document Index: 175324827

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 2000', '§ 621', '§ 12101', '§ 2250', '§ 1331', '§ 1983']

- Any -Chief Judge Christopher C. ConnerChief Magistrate Judge Susan E. SchwabJudge A. Richard CaputoJudge James M. MunleyJudge John E. Jones IIIJudge Malachy E. MannionJudge Matthew W. BrannJudge Robert D. MarianiJudge Sylvia H. RamboJudge Thomas M. BlewittJudge Yvette KaneMagistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.Magistrate Judge Karoline MehalchickMagistrate Judge Martin C. CarlsonMagistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle
4:06-cv-2123 Portis v. River House Associates, LP, et al. 08/02/2007
Pending before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss Counts IV and V of the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“the Motion”), filed by all Defendants1 to this action on April 13, 2007. (Rec. Doc. 15). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
1:06-cr-0438 USA v. Rogers 06/21/2007
Presently before the court are defendant’s motions to suppress evidence (Docs. 23, 30) and motion to suppress identification (Doc. 25). The court held an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motions on April 9, 2007. (See Doc. 38.) The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be denied.
4:07-cv-88 McTernan, et al. v. City of York, et al. 05/21/2007
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (doc. 2) filed by Plaintiffs John McTernan, Edward D. Snell, John Wood and Luanne Ferguson on January 16, 2007. Within the Motion, Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an injunction against the City of York and its officials and police officers, preventing the City of York from interfering with Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free exercise rights in front of the Planned Parenthood facility located on Beaver Street in the City of York. Plaintiffs also move the Court to enjoin the City of York from enforcing trespass statutes against the Plaintiffs on the handicap ramp that accesses the Planned Parenthood facility.
For the reasons that follow, we shall deny the Motion.
1:06-cv-0247 Allen v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 05/14/2007
This is a § 1983 civil rights action brought by Robert Lee Allen (“Allen”) against certain state actors arising from their search of his property, seizure of his farm animals, and prosecution of him for purported violations of Pennsylvania’s cruelty-to-animals statute. Presently before the court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants The Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. (“PSPCA”), and Elizabeth Pennell Hopkins (“Hopkins”) (Doc. No. 27), and by the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc. (“HSHA”), Deb Witmer (“Witmer”), and Jill Troutman (“Troutman”) (Doc. No. 28). Also before the Court is a motion for oral argument (Doc. No. 36) filed by defendants HSHA, Witmer, and Troutman. For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for oral argument will be denied as moot.
1:05-CV-1504 Jones v. Southcentral Employment Corp., et al. 05/22/2007
In this action Plaintiff Gertha Jones has alleged that Defendants’ termination of her employment and subsequent failure to hire her for two different positions constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, age, and disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 29.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted because Plaintiff is estopped from establishing a prima facie element of each of her claims, namely, that she was qualified for any of the jobs in question.
1:06-CR-389 USA v. Kapp and 1:06-CR-422 USA v. Duncan 05/16/2007
Now before the Court are motions to dismiss indictments in two separate criminal actions: United States v. Kapp and United States v. Duncan. Defendants have moved to dismiss indictments for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, and have separately challenged the applicability and constitutionality of that statute on similar bases. For reasons of judicial economy, the Court will address both motions in a single order. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motions will be granted.
3:06-CV-0324 Daniels v. Fernwood Corporation 05/16/2007
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). (Doc. 11.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion will be granted.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1332 (“diversity of citizenship”). Because we are sitting in diversity, the substantive law of Pennsylvania shall apply to the instant case. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)).
3:06-cv-01898 Vicky M. and Darin M. v. NEIU 19, et al. 05/15/2007
Presently before the Court are three motions to dismiss. The first was filed by Defendant Susan Comerford Wzorek. (Doc. 5.) The second was filed by Defendants Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit 19, Fred R. Rosetti, Ed.D. and Clarence Lamanna, Ed.D. (Doc. 6.) The third motion was filed by Defendants The School District of Abington Heights, David Arnold, Ed.D., William McNulty, and Mariellen Sluko. (Doc. 7.)
3:07-cv-0717 Arias-Maravilla v. Stankovic, Register of Wills for Luzerne County 05/01/2007
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Heather Buck and Jose Guadelupe Arias-Maravilla’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendant Dorothy Stankovic, Register of Wills for Luzerne County, her agents and employees, from requiring Plaintiff Arias to prove his lawful presence in the United States as a condition of obtaining a marriage license. (Doc. 3.) A hearing was held on Thursday, April 26, 2007, supplemental briefs were filed and Plaintiffs’ motion is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a), as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983.