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.

Jason Collura v. City of Philadelphia

December 21, 2012

JASON COLLURA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, P/O CEDRIC WHITE, P/O JOSEPH CORVI, P/O DANIEL DAVIS, P/O MARIA ORTIZ- RODRIGUEZ, P/O JERROLD BATES, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, AND ALLIED BARTON, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. DuBOIS, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant, AlliedBarton Security Services LLC's, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. No. 8, filed August 9, 2012), and the related filings by the parties,*fn1 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Impertinent and Scandalous Allegations (Doc. No. 16, filed August 24, 2012), and the related filings by the parties,*fn2 and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Or Alternatively Motion to Add Parties Under Rule 21 (Doc. No. 23, filed October 9, 2012), and the related filings of the parties,*fn3 for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated December 20, 2012, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant, AlliedBarton Security Services LLC's, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. No. 8, filed August 9, 2012) is GRANTED,and all claims against AlliedBarton Security Services LLC are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The dismissal of the claims against AlliedBarton Security Services LLC is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to include them in an amended complaint filed within thirty (30) days if warranted by the facts and the law set forth in the Memorandum dated December 20, 2012.

2. City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16, filed August 24, 2012) is GRANTED, and the following claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

a. Count 1 -- false arrest and illegal imprisonment against defendants Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates;

b. Count 2 -- intentional infliction of emotional distress against all City Defendants;

c. Count 3 -- Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants;

d. Count 3 -- Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against defendants Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates;

e. Count 4 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates;

f. Count 5 -- Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants;

g. Count 5 -- Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against defendants Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates;

h. Count 6 -- Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution against all City Defendants; and

i. Count 6 -- First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against defendants Sergeant Ortiz-Rodriguez and Inspector Bates.

The dismissal of the above identified claims is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to include them in an amended complaint filed within thirty (30) days if warranted by the facts and the law ...


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.