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.

Andres v. Joy Mining MacHinery

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

October 14, 2014

ROBERT ANDRES, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
JOY MINING MACHINERY, et al, Defendants.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the motion for contempt filed by Plaintiff [ECF No. 93] be denied in part and dismissed in part.

II. REPORT

A. Relevant Procedural History

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt. ECF No. 93. Plaintiff suggests that Joy Mining failed to comply with this Court's September 2013 Order Enforcing a Settlement Agreement.

The underlying case has a protracted history, only part of which need be related here. This civil action was removed from Venango County Court of Common Pleas by Defendants on February 9, 2011. In his original complaint, Plaintiff, acting pro se , named the following as Defendants: Defendants Joy Mining Machinery, IAM Local 1842, and Elmer Fiely, Jr. Plaintiff's complaint read:

Complaint: Extreme harassment, Disparity of treatment, Termination without fair trial, Violation of company harassment policy, Violation of company work rules, Violation of collective bargaining agreement, Covering up unsafe work conditions, and filing false accident report, failure to filling out accident report, Hate crime, Violation of privacy act, Willful misconduct and abuse of power, Unlawful suspension for something someone did (machine wreck), failure to provide a safe work place. Retaliation of an employee for reporting assault and hate crimes by an employer and employee. Reporting false information in a workers compensation case, violation of equal employment laws of PA. Intimidation in the workforce. Refuse of medical treatment when requested by employee. On shift Company EMS was not provided (turned away by shift foreman who was not medical trained to do so).

ECF No. 1-2.

Plaintiff, still acting pro se , filed an Amended Complaint on July 18, 2011 [ECF No. 14], Defendants filed Answers, and this Court conducted a Case Management Conference. The parties agreed to participate in mediation before Thomas Frampton, Esquire. By Notice filed December 19, 2011, this Court was notified that mediation was unsuccessful. ECF No. 38.

The parties appeared before the undersigned for a Settlement Conference on February 13, 2012. A settlement was reached and this case was administratively closed. ECF Nos. 41, 42. The case was re-opened in June of 2012, after the parties advised the Court in June of 2012 that the prior settlement was no longer in effect.

Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and briefs in opposition thereto. Because some of Plaintiff's pro se briefing revolved around proposed edits to the February 13, 2012 Settlement Agreement, this Court conducted a status conference on October 17, 2012, which became yet another round of settlement discussions. ECF No. 61. Because of conflicting medical reports concerning Plaintiff's physical limitations and his ability to return to work, the parties agreed that an independent medical exam would be conducted at Defendants' expense within two weeks and further settlement discussions before the Court would be held thereafter. Id.

This Court held a Status Conference on November 15, 2012, at which time counsel for Joy Mining indicated that the independent medical exam had taken place, but no report had been drafted. ECF No. 69. This Court held a Status Conference again on November 28, 2012. The report from the independent medical exam indicated that Plaintiff could return to light duty work. Settlement was not reached and a new briefing schedule was entered. ECF No. 70. This Court indicated that it would attempt to locate counsel willing to assist Plaintiff in this case.

In April of 2013, Attorney Mark Pavkov entered his appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. ECF No. 77. On April 9, 2013, this Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Cynthia Eddy for further settlement discussions. ECF No. 76. Settlement was scheduled for June 5, 2013, and the parties informed the Court on June 3rd that the matter ...


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.