AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

DOROTHEA SARTESCHI, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2007, upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 8), to which no objections were filed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that a plaintiff may not maintain a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim alleging a conspiracy between a corporation and one of its officers acting in an official capacity, see Robison v. Canterbury Village, Inc., 848 F.2d 424, 431 (3d Cir. 1988), but that a plaintiff may maintain a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim alleging a conspiracy between the officers of a corporation, see Novotny v. Great Am. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 584 F.2d 1235, 1259 (3d Cir. 1978), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff's claim against defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) is DISMISSED.
b. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) is otherwise DENIED.
3. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SARTESCHI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Apr 24, 2007)