Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Wendy Chan v. County of Lancaster

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 28, 2012

WENDY CHAN, PLAINTIFF
v.
COUNTY OF LANCASTER; DENNIS STUCKEY; SCOTT MARTIN; CRAIG LEHMAN; CHARLES E. DOUTS, JR.; AND ANDREA MCCUE, DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge

ORDER

NOW, this 28th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which motion was filed on October 31, 2011 (Document 28), together with

(A) Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Document 29)("Defendants' Brief");

(2) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings, which response and alternative motion was filed on November 17, 2011 (Document 30)("Plaintiff's Response"), together with

(A) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Third Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and in the Alternative, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading (Document 30-1) ("Plaintiff's Memorandum"); and

(B) [Proposed] Third Amended Complaint (Document 30-5), with Exhibits A-F (Documents 30-6 through 30-11, respectively);

(3) Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to File Amended Pleading, which response was filed on November 29, 2011 (Document 31); and

(4) Second Amended Complaint filed October 17, 2011 (Document 27);

and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted to the extent that it seeks to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 procedural due process claim in Count I.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's procedural due process claim in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted to the extent that it seeks to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 conspiracy claim in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's section 1983 conspiracy claim in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, in Count III, and Under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, In Count IV.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's alternative motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is denied.

BY THE COURT:

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER

20120928

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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