Rittenhouse Entm't, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre

Full title: RITTENHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; THE MINES, INC.; G NET COMM. CO.; PHOENIX…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 16, 2012

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-617 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-617

08-16-2012

RITTENHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; THE MINES, INC.; G NET COMM. CO.; PHOENIX ESTATES; and THOMAS J. GRECO; Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE; THOMAS LEIGHTON, individually and as Mayor of Wilkes-Barre; GERALD DESSOYE, individually and as Chief of Police of Wilkes-Barre; J.J. MURPHY, individually and as City Administrator of Wilkes-Barre; TONY THOMAS, JR., KATHY KANE, WILLIAM BARRET, RICK CRONAUER, and MICHAEL MERRITT, individually and as Members of the Wilkes-Barre City Council; BUTCH FRATI, individually and as Director of Operations of Wilkes-Barre; LUZERNE COUNTY; MICHAEL SAVOKINAS, individually and as Luzerne County Sheriff; KING'S COLLEGE; and FATHER THOMAS J. O'HARA, ROBERT MCGONIGLE, PAUL LINDENMUTH, and JOHN MCANDREW, individually and as Officers and Employees of King's College; Defendants.

A. Richard Caputo

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

ORDER

NOW, this 16th day of August, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) The City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

(a) The §§ 1983 and 1985 claims asserted by Mr. Greco and Rittenhouse in Count I are DISMISSED with prejudice. (B) Count II's §§ 1981 and 1982 claims against the City Council members, J.J. Murphy, and Butch Frati, as well as Rittenhouse's § 1985 claim against all City Defendants, are dismissed with prejudice.
(c) The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.

(2) The County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

(a) The § 1983 claims asserted by Mr. Greco and Rittenhouse and the § 1985 claims asserted by The Mines, Mr. Greco, and Rittenhouse in Count I are DISMISSED with prejudice.
(b) Count II's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
(c) The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.

(3) The College Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

(a) The §§ 1983 and 1985 claims asserted by Mr. Greco and Rittenhouse in Count I are DISMISSED with prejudice.
(b) Count II's §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985 claims asserted by Mr. Greco and Rittenhouse are DISMISSED with prejudice.
(c) The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.

(4) Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Order.

___________

A. Richard Caputo

United States District Judge