The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joyner, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Xenia Filipos, has sued Defendant, Ronald Sidovar, alleging
sexual harassment. This case was properly removed to this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). Presently before the Court is Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's
Motion is GRANTED.
Mr. Sidovar, in turn, states that during the interview Ms. Filipos
"became belligerent and in fact threatened to sue me." Affidavit of
Ronald Sidovar at ¶ 5. He states that he "leaned half way over the [3
to 4 foot wide] desk and told her I was going to call the police." He
states in his affidavit that "[a]t no time did I get any closer than two
feet from her and at no time did I ever touch her." Id. at ¶ 6.
Plaintiff filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas for
Northampton County. Defendant removed the case to this Court in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1).
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, reveal no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Our
responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact, but to
determine whether any factual issues exist to be tried. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202
(1986). The presence of "a mere scintilla of evidence" in the nonmovant's
favor will not avoid summary judgment. Williams v. Borough of West
Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Rather, we will grant summary judgment unless "the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
In making this determination, all of the facts must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 256,
106 S.Ct. 2505. Once the moving party has put the initial burden of
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
non-moving party must establish the existence of each element of its
case. J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion. Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1531 (3d
Cir. 1990) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 323, 106 S.Ct.
2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
II. Plaintiff's Failure to Respond to Defendant's Motion
Defendant's Motion was filed on September 30, 1999. Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 7.1(c) requires Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion
within 14 days. It has now been more than 45 days since Defendant's
motion was filed. Accordingly, the Court will rule on Defendant's Motion
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 56(e), which states
that "[i]f the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if
appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party." Because
plaintiff has not responded to Defendan's Motion, her statement of facts,
and proof of her case, will need to be taken from her Complaint.
III. The Parties Agree on the Material Facts
Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Plaintiff went to the SSA office on
February 3, 1999, for the purpose of objecting to a $45.50 deduction from
her February 2, 1999 social security check. Complaint at 3, Answer at
¶ 2. The parties further agree that Plaintiff wound up at Defendant's
desk, and that after some discussion Defendant stood and leaned ...