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.

Warren v. Baker

August 7, 2007

LESTER M. WARREN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA J. WARREN, AND LESTER M. WARREN IN HIS OWN RIGHT, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims filed by Defendants Louis E. Bricklin, Esquire and Bennet, Bricklin & Saltzburg, LLP (the "Motion")(doc. 14) filed on June 20, 2007.

For the following reasons, the Motion (doc. 14) will be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Lester M. Warren ("Plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a complaint with the Court on January 31, 2007. Plaintiff names thirty-three defendants, including Louis E. Bricklin and Bennet, Bricklin & Saltzburg (hereinafter "moving Defendants").

The moving Defendants filed the instant Motion and supporting brief (docs. 14 and 30) on June 20 and July 3, 2007, respectively. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, a party opposing a motion shall file a responsive brief within fifteen (15) days after service of the movant's brief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's opposition brief was due by July 19, 2007. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition brief. On July 18, 2007 Plaintiff filed a document entitled Plaintiff's Answer to various motions to dismiss pending in this action. The document consisted of one paragraph, requesting the Court deny the various pending motions to dismiss and suggesting that a timely brief would be filed. However, as noted, the time for filing a brief has passed, and the Plaintiff has not filed the promised opposition brief. It should be noted that Plaintiff did not request additional time to file a responsive brief. Pursuant to L.R. 7.6, when an opposing party fails to file a responsive brief, the Court shall deem the motion as unopposed.

Plaintiff, individually and in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Barbara J. Warren, instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in March 2004 against 13 named Defendants (hereinafter "State Court Action"). See Lester M. Warren, et al. v. Mark E. Folk, D.O., et al., Case No. 2004 cv 2081, Dauphin County. The State Court Action was a medical malpractice/wrongful death claim. The Honorable Bruce F. Bratton, of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, presided over the State Court Action.*fn1

Plaintiff's complaint contains lengthy factual allegations, therefore we shall only recite the facts as they pertain to the moving Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the moving Defendants, who represented the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau in the State Court Action, filed preliminary objections in the State Court Action and in doing so "provided no citations of law to support their allegations. THE WB DEFENDANTS' [referring to the moving Defendants] STATEMENTS CONSTITUTE LIES, PERJURY AND FRAUD!" (Compl., ¶ 140)(emphasis in original). Plaintiff further alleges that "there can be no doubt that the actions taken by all defendants, in this action, were in concert and were part of a continuing conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional statutory rights." (Compl., ¶ 141).

As noted, in the State Court Action, the moving Defendants represented the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, a third party payer. Judge Bratton granted the moving Defendants' preliminary objections to the Plaintiff's State Court Action complaint, however he also allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint, to which the moving Defendants, once again as counsel for the Farm Bureau, filed additional preliminary objections. Judge Bratton sustained those preliminary objections.

In the complaint filed in the instant matter, Plaintiff's first cause of action is styled as "Federal Civil Rights Violations." Plaintiff alleges that:

As a direct and proximate result of all Defendants' conduct, committed under color of state law, Plaintiff was deprived of his right to appeal, which is rendered a nullity by the dismissal of certain defendants from the wrongful death case, and of his property rights including damages for wrongful death case, by the vexious and biased acts of Defendants which needlessly and deliberately increased the cost of litigation, and of his right to due process and equal protection of the law. AS a result, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer harm, in violation of his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourteenth Amendment thereof, and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. (Compl., ¶ 179).

Plaintiff further alleges that "[a]ll Defendants are guilty of committing the crimes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242 (and related Sec. 241)," and that: other state and federal crimes have been committed by Defendants, including Abuse of Office, Obstructing Administration of law or other governmental function, Mail fraud, Obstruction of justice, Perjury, Unsworn falsification to authorities, Racketeering, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and, possibly, Bribery. (Compl., ¶¶ 181-182).

Plaintiff's second cause of action is styled "Supplemental State Claims." Plaintiff alleges at Paragraph 186 that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate his claims for negligence, gross negligence and "equivalent portions of the Pennsylvania Constitution violated, to those violated in the Federal Constitution." (Compl., ΒΆ186). Furthermore, under the second cause of action, Plaintiff seeks ...


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.