Opinion
CIVIL 5:23-cv-03805-JMG
11-01-2024
NELSON VARUGHESE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN M. GALLAGHER, United States District Court Judge
AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (ECF No. 22), and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 26), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 23) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 27), Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
“Motions to strike . . . are not favored and usually will be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues.” N. Penn Transfer, Inc. v. Victaulic Co. of Am., 859 F.Supp. 154, 158 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While the Court did not find the fact of an opening of a general investigation into the Defendant's hiring practices pertinent to its consideration in adjudicating the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to this specific employee's claim of discrimination, the Court also does not find that granting the Defendant's Motion to Strike is appropriate given the legal standard.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.