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.

Kaleta v. Clausi

United States District Court, Third Circuit

May 24, 2013

DAVID F. KALETA, Plaintiff,
v.
VINNY CLAUSI, STEPHEN BRIDY, and COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND, Defendants.

ORDER

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's May 6, 2013 Report & Recommendation with respect to defendant's "motion to dismiss" (ECF No. 33) (hereinafter, the "R. & R.") is ADOPTED and MODIFIED to reflect the following:

1. With respect to plaintiff's claim alleging a violation of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act, defendants have sought summary judgment, not dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Defs.' Br., Nov. 27, 2012, ECF No. 19 at 8-16) (subsection "IV.A." entitled "Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim for a violation of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.").
2. Defendants's motion for summary judgment does not comply with Local Rule 56.1, which requires a "separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." In turn, plaintiff has not, as required, "include[d] a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the [moving party's] statement..., as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried." L.R. 56.1.
3. The parties's L.R. 56.1 statements (including, as required, "references to the parts of the record that support the statements") are an important aid to the Court in deciding a motion for summary judgment.
4. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants's motion for summary judgment for failure to comply with L.R. 56.1.
5. In all interactions of the parties with the Court (including, of course, the filing of future dispositive motions (see R. & R. at 19 (providing for further dispositive motions))), strict compliance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is expected and required.

The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson.


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.