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.

Cruz v. State

April 11, 2007

DAVID CRUZ AND LAURA SAMUEL CRUZ, PLAINTIFF
v.
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF YORK, SCHAAD DETECTIVE AGENCY, ED GUMPER, ET. AL, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS

Pending before the Court are: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - Responding to Motion to Dismiss Complaint Rule 15(a) (doc. 57) filed on February 5, 2007 and Plaintiffs' Motion Compelling Production of Documents Rules 34 and 37 (doc. 62) filed on March 29, 2007.

Also pending before the Court are: Defendant York County's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 25) filed on October 11, 2006 and Defendants Schaad Detective Agency and Ed Gumper's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 28) filed on October 14, 2006.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case has a complicated and lengthy procedural history. We shall undertake a detailed summary of the procedural history inasmuch as it is highly relevant to the disposition of the above-referenced pending Motions as well as the directives we shall make to the Plaintiffs within this Order.

On July 5, 2006, Plaintiff David Cruz commenced the instant action by filing a complaint. (Rec. Doc. 1). (Rec. Doc. 2). On July 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding his wife, Laura Samuel Cruz as a party-Plaintiff. (Rec. Doc. 6). On July 14, 2006, Plaintiffs were granted in forma pauperis status and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the amended complaint.

On August 31, 2006, Defendants Schaad Detective Agency and Ed Gumper filed a Motion to Dismiss with supporting brief. (Rec. Docs. 12 and 13). On September 6, 2006, Defendant County of York filed a Motion to Dismiss with supporting brief. (Rec. Docs. 14 and 15). On September 11, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to Defendants Schaad and Gumper's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 16), which was granted by Order dated September 14, 2006. (Rec. Doc. 17). On that same date, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to Defendants Schaad and Gumper's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 18), as well as a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 19). Thereafter, on September 21, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to Defendant County of York's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 20), which we granted by Order dated September 25, 2006. (Rec. Doc. 21).*fn1 On October 2, 2006, Plaintiffs again filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (doc. 22), although we had not yet ruled on the September 14, 2006 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

In an effort to clean up the chaos that had occurred on the docket by Plaintiffs' repeat filings, on October 4, 2006 we entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' dual Motions for Leave to Amend the Complaint, and dismissing as moot the pending Motions to Dismiss. (Rec. Doc. 23). The Clerk was directed to file the Amended Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 24).

On October 11, 2006, Defendant County of York filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 25) with supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. 26). On October 14, 2006, Defendants Schaad and Gumper filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 28) with supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. 29).

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Production of Documents. (Rec. Doc. 27). On October 20, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 30), and a letter requesting an extension of time to respond to the pending Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 31). On October 23, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a formal motion for extension of time to file a brief in opposition to the pending Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 33) and another Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Rec. Doc. 34).

On October 25, 2006, we entered an Order denying both Motions to Appoint Counsel (doc. 35) and a separate Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time, granting the Plaintiffs an additional thirty days to file opposing briefs to the pending Motions. Despite this, Plaintiffs never filed any opposing briefs, and on December 13, 2006, we issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Motions to Dismiss and closing the case. (Rec. Docs. 38 and 39).

Following that, we received nothing short of an assault of filings from the Plaintiffs including: Motion to Compel Production of Documents (doc. 40) with supporting brief (doc. 41), filed on December 14, 2006, another Motion to Compel (doc. 43) filed on December 21, 2006; a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal (doc. 45), Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal (doc. 46), brief in support of the reconsideration motion (doc. 47), all filed on December 26, 2006; a document titled a "Notice" for Order Vacating Order of Dismissal (doc. 48), a Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal (doc. 49), and supporting brief (doc. 50), all filed on December 28, 2006. Finally, on January 17 and 18, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Order of Dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Rec. Docs. 51 and 52).*fn2

On January 19, 2007, we entered an Order vacating the Order of Dismissal and ordering the Clerk to reopen the case. We ordered Plaintiffs to file a brief in opposition to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss within thirty days. (Rec. Doc. 53). After that, the all too familiar pattern re-emerged. On February 5, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents (doc. 54) with supporting brief (doc. 55), as well as a Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 56), which essentially requested the Court to order discovery be released to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to File an ...


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.