WEST v. CITY OF BETHLEHEM et al

Filing 10

ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 6 AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION THERETO 8 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINT IFF'S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN RELATION TO HIS TITLE VII AND 42 U.S.C. 1983 CLAIMS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S TITLE VII AND 42 U.S.C. 1983 CLAIMS IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 10/24/11. 10/27/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WARREN WEST, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BETHLEHEM ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1194 ORDER AND NOW, this _____ day of October, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in relation to his Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Petrese B. Tucker Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J. -1-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?