Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

05-294 - HAYDUK v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
05-294 - HAYDUK v. CITY OF JOHNSTOWN et al
October 4, 2006
PDF | More
ff's Motion to Compel; denying 22 Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting a Stay and an Extension of Time for the Filing of an Expert Report. Plaintiff must file his expert report as to damages within 7 days of thMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting a Stay and an Extension of Time for the Filing of an Expert Report as to Damages; denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintie date of this Order; granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Expert Report. Defendants' deadline for filing their Expert Report will be rescheduled pending the resolution of the November 1 argument on Defendants' Motion to Compel; and granting 26 Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Complaint; Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 7 days of the date of this Order. Defendants will have 20 days from the date of service to file their amended response; An Oral Argument is scheduled by conference call on Defendants' Motion to Compel. The call will take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 2:00 PM. All participating counsel shall be on the line together and shall initiate the conference call to the Court. Counsel of record should mark their calendars accordingly. The deadlines set forth in the Court's Case Management Order are to be rescheduled following the outcome of the November 1, 2006 oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Compel; and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 10/4/2006. (dlg)
June 30, 2008
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as follows: 1) Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice; 2) Plaintiff's claims of interference arising from Defendants' refusal to grant Plaintiff post-termination FMLA leave and reinstatement are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3) Plaintiff's claims for wrongful termination in violation of the FMLA shall be tried as a claim of discrimination and/or retaliation rather than as a claim of interference; 4) The remainder of Plaintiff's claims, all of which are for interference with his rights under the FMLA, are DISMISSED; 5) Plaintiff's absences of August 1, 14, 15, 21 and 22, 2003 were not protected by the FMLA and any of Plaintiff's claims arising solely from those absences are therefore DISMISSED; 6) To establish that his August 7, 2003 absence was protected by the FMLA, Plaintiff must show both adequacy of the notice he provided on August 8, 2003 and that the absence was in fact caused by a serious health condition; 7) To establish that his absences of August 29 and September 5, 2003 were protected by the FMLA, Plaintiff need only show that they were in fact caused by a serious health condition; 8) Defendant Silka's claim of immunity from suit for terminating Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for Plaintiff's absences on August 29, 2003 and/or September 5, 2003 is DENIED; 9) Defendant Silka's claim of immunity from suit for terminating Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for his absence on August 7, 2003 will be decided by the Court after the finder of fact determines the content of the notice Plaintiff provided to Defendants on August 8, 2003 regarding his August 7, 2003 absence; 10) Since, if Plaintiff establishes that one or more of his absences on August 7, August 29 and September 5, 2003 were protected by the FMLA, Defendants then have the burden of showing that they would have terminated Plaintiff even absent consideration of the protected absences, the Court will reopen discovery on that issue only for 60 days following the filing of this Order; 11) All deadlines contained in the Court's Sixth Amended Pretrial Order, (Document No. 96), are continued until further notice, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 6/30/2008. (dlg)