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.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2012, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
1:05-CV-1504 JONES v. SOUTHCENTRAL EMPLOYMENT CORP., et al.Judge:File:
1:06-CR-389 USA v. KAPP and 1:06-CR-422 USA v. DUNCANJudge:File:
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-00324 DANIELS v. FERNWOOD CORPORATIONFile:
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. NORTHEASTERN EDUCATIONAL INTERMEDIATE UNIT 19, et al.File:
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 CountyFile:
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.
3:04-CV-2427 DOE v. REV. ALBERT M. LIBERATORE, JR., et al.File:
Presently before the Court are Defendants Diocese of Scranton (the “Diocese”), Sacred Heart of Jesus Church (“Sacred Heart”), Bishop James C. Timlin (“Bishop Timlin”), Rev. Joseph R. Kopacz (“Father Kopacz”) (collectively the “Diocesan Defendants”) and Brother Antonio F. Antonucci’s (“Brother Antonucci”) (collectively “Defendants”) motions for summary judgment (Docs. 75-1, 76) as to Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiff John Doe’s Complaint (Doc. 1). The Diocesan Defendants also seek summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motions. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a).
3:05-CV-2280 US INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE v. WHITEFile:
Presently before the Court is an appeal from an order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the above-entitled matter. For the reasons stated below, the order of the Bankruptcy Court will be modified and Appellant’s motion requesting relief from the automatic stay will be granted. Appellant will be permitted to setoff the entire amount of the Appellees’ 2003 income tax refund against Appellees’ prior tax liabilities.
3:06-0040 LEWIS v. YORK COUNTY PRISON ADMINISTRATION, et al.Judge:File:
The plaintiff was an alien detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the York County Correctional Facility pending removal. He filed the instant complaint on January 9, 2006. (Doc. No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, he received an administrative order directing him to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis and an application and authorization form for use by prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 5.) Upon his returning the application and the authorization form, the court issued an administrative order pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), directing the prison warden to remit each month to the court a percentage of the filing fee from the plaintiff’s prison account. (Doc. No. 11.)
3:03-CV-0602 KEGOLIS v. BOROUGH OF SHENANDOAH, PENNSYLVANIA, et al.File:
Plaintiff John A. Kegolis was hired as a police officer with Defendant Borough of Shenandoah (“the Borough”) in August of 1993. (Doc. 41 ¶ 2.) On or about February 9, 1999, Plaintiff was in pursuit of a fugitive when he slipped on a patch of ice and fell, striking his neck. (Doc. 1 ¶ 15; Doc. 41 ¶ 3.) As a result of this impact, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his cervical spinal column in the region of C5-C7. (Id.) Plaintiff continued to perform his regular duties as a Borough police officer until May 27, 1999, when he was restricted to sedentary duty by Myron D. Haas, D.O., Plaintiff’s treating physician.
3:04-CV-1920 KOSCIOLEK v. WILKES-BARRE FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 104, et al.File:
Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Thomas E. Kosciolek (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants City of Wilkes-Barre (the “City”), Thomas M. Leighton (“Mayor Leighton”), Jacob Lisman (“Chief Lisman”) (collectively “City Defendants”), and Wilkes-Barre Fire Fighters Local 104, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (“Local 104") (collectively “Defendants”). (Docs. 61, 64, 71 and 76.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied. Defendants' motions will be granted as to Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The Court has jurisdiction over Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Counts II and III of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and will dismiss these claims without prejudice.