SCHLEIG v. BOROUGH OF NAZARETH et al, No. 5:2015cv04550 - Document 38 (E.D. Pa. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 8/9/16. 8/10/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )

Download PDF
SCHLEIG v. BOROUGH OF NAZARETH et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEPHEN SCHLEIG, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4550 BOROUGH OF NAZARETH, THOMAS M. TRACHTA, MAYOR FRED C. DAUGHTERY, JR., MAYOR CARL R. STRYE, JR., DANIEL JAMES TROXELL, RANDALL MILLER, PAUL KOKOLUS, JR., LARRY STOUDT, FRANK MAUREK, MICHAEL KOPACH, CYNTHIA WERNER, CHARLES DONELLO, DANIEL CHIAVAROLI, WILLIAM MATZ, BRIAN F. REGN, JOHN N. SAMUS, LANCE E. COLONDO, CHRISTIAN AUDENRIED, and CARL FISCHL, Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this day of August, 2016, upon review of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in support, Plaintiff’s Response thereto, and Defendants’ Reply, as well as Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Defendant’s Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants Mayor Fred C. Daugherty, Jr., Paul Kokolus, Jr., Larry Stoudt, Frank Maurek, Michael Kopach, Cynthia Werner, Charles Donello, Daniel Chiavaroli, William Matz, Brian F. Regn, John N. Samus, Lance E. Colondo, Christian Dockets.Justia.com Audenried and Carl Fischl are DISMISSED from this action and all claims against them are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. Count IV of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (improperly designated as the second Count III) is DISMISSED; 4. Count V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (improperly designated as Count IV) is DISMISSED; 5. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for any events that occurred prior to August 11, 2013, said events are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; 6. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects; 7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 8. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint which contains paragraphs 39 to 48 and 74 as set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint; and 9. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall not contain paragraphs 89 and 111 to 116 as set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.