From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romano v. Young

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 2011
CIVIL ACTION No. 07-1708 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-1708.

February 2, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants Dean Ceraul and Plainfield Township's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum dated February 1, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion (Document No. 117) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
a. The motion is GRANTED as to Count II.
b. The motion is DENIED with respect to the inadequate screening claims in Count III.
c. The motion is GRANTED as to all other claims in Count III.
d. The motion is GRANTED as to Count IV.
e. The motion is GRANTED as to Count V.
d. The motion is GRANTED as to Counts VIII and IX with respect to claims against Dean Ceraul.


Summaries of

Romano v. Young

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 2011
CIVIL ACTION No. 07-1708 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Romano v. Young

Case Details

Full title:KAREN ROMANO, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF MINOR…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 2, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-1708 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2011)

Citing Cases

Torain v. City of Philadelphia

There is “no obligation to specifically train police officers not to engage in criminal conduct that is…

Stadler v. Abrams

In the alternative, Atlantic City argues in its reply brief that the Individual Defendants' behavior, as…