Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FIORE v. KELLY RUN SANITATION

May 30, 1985

WILLIAM FIORE t/d/b/a MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL COMPANY, Plaintiff
v.
KELLY RUN SANITATION, INC., GARY L. FIORE, MARINO FIORE a/k/a "JUMBO FIORE", and MARGARET FIORE and BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES, INC. and ROBERT A. JOHNSON, STEPHEN L. THOMAS, LOREN E. BECK, KAREL T. PEKAREK, JOHN DRURY, and BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES of PENNSYLVANIA, INC., and WILLIAM CURTIS, CLIFFORD BRIGHT, EDWARD BENKO, WILLIAM PITTMAN, and DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, and CHARLES A. DURITSA a/k/a "CHUCK DURITSA", TONY ORLANDO and V. VINCENT LUCI, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER

 AND NOW this 30th day of May, 1985, having considered plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction on which the court has held oral argument, and all pending motions to dismiss and/or to strike which have been fully briefed by the parties, IT IS ORDERED in accordance with the accompanying opinion that:

 1) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED;

 2) Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Section 1983 civil rights claim is GRANTED, and Count II of the Second Amended Complaint alleging civil rights violations against Duritsa, Orlando and Luci is DISMISSED;

 3) All claims against DER are DISMISSED and the action is DISCONTINUED as to it;

 4) All claims against defendants Duritsa, Orlando and Luci in their official capacity as state employees are DISMISSED; the action continues against these defendants as individuals only;

 5) BFI's motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of in personam jurisdiction is DENIED;

 6) Defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's Sherman Act and Section 4 Clayton Act antitrust claims are DENIED; Defendants' motion to dismiss that portion of Count IV which alleges a Section 2(c) Robinson-Patman Act violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 13(c) is GRANTED;

 7) Defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's RICO claims (Count I) are STAYED;

 8) Defendants' motions to dismiss pendant state claims are DENIED;

 9) Defendants' motions to strike specific damage amounts alleged in violation of Local Rule of Court 30 is GRANTED;

 10) Remaining defendants shall file their answers to the Second Amended Complaint in accord with the accompanying opinion, within 20 days. Discovery shall proceed in accord with the accompanying opinion except on matters involved in the RICO act claims.

 WEBER, D. J.

 This action seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief was brought by an individual involved in the business of trash hauling and disposal against various competitors, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), and three DER employees. The complaint, which has undergone various amendments, alleges that all defendants were involved in violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962; Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; Sections 2(c) and 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13(c) and 15); as well as pendant state claims of unjust enrichment, commercial bribery, and inducement to breach fiduciary duty. Civil rights violations are alleged only against DER, Duritsa, Orlando and Luci.

 Plaintiff filed an application for a preliminary injunction. Responses to the motion were filed by various defendants and a hearing was conducted on the issues. The hearing on the preliminary injunction was continued, pending arguments on related issues in another case before this court, Reeger v. Mill Service, Inc., et al., 593 F. Supp. 360 (W.D.Pa. 1984), which case has since been dismissed. Defendants have filed answers and/or motions to dismiss the amended complaint. These motions are now pending before the court and have been fully briefed.

 I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 A request for preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 must provide specific facts which indicate a) the immediate and irreparable harm which is at issue, b) a reasonable likelihood that plaintiff will be successful on the merits of the suit, c) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the granting and/or denial of relief as requested, and d) if relevant, the effect of an injunction on the public interest. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.