Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Santiago v. City of Vineland

August 10, 2000

LUIS A. SANTIAGO,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
CITY OF VINELAND, ET AL., ORDER
DEFENDANTS.



HON. STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of Defendants City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo, and on the motion of Defendants Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne and Dennis D'Augostine for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), Lars S. Hyberg, Esq. of McAllister, Hyberg & White, P.C., appearing on behalf of Defendants City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo, and A. Michael Barker, Esq. and Joseph M. Scott, Esq. of A. Michael Barker, P.C., appearing on behalf of Defendants Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne, and Dennis D'Augostine, and F. Michael Daily, Jr., Esq. of Quinlan, Dunne & Daily, P.A., appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, Luis A. Santiago; and,

The Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in the OPINION filed concurrently with this ORDER;

IT IS, on this 2nd day of August, 2000, hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion of Defendants City of Vineland, Joseph Romano and John P. Gallo and the motion of Defendants Mario Brunetta, Paul Letizia, John Fresne and Dennis D'Augostine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and,

2. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's claim under Title VII, as set forth in Count One of the Amended Complaint, are GRANTED with respect to all defendants in this case; and,

3. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's claim of race discrimination under the NJLAD, as set forth in Count Two of the Amended Complaint, are GRANTED with respect to defendants Romano, Gallo and Letizia and DENIED with respect to the City of Vineland, Brunetta, D'Augostine and Fresne; and,

4. The motions for summary judgment on Count Three of the Amended Complaint are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's claims for race discrimination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 are GRANTED with respect to the City of Vineland, Romano, Gallo and Letizia and DENIED with respect to Brunetta, D'Augostine and Fresne; and,

b. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's claims of procedural due process, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are GRANTED with respect to the City of Vineland, Fresne and D'Augostine and DENIED with respect to Brunetta, Letizia, Romano and Gallo; and,

c. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's federal claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are GRANTED with respect to all defendants except D'Augostine; and,

d. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's conspiracy claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) are GRANTED with respect to all defendants; and,

e. The motions for summary judgment on any other claims allegedly raised under Count Three and not explicitly decided by this Court are DENIED as to all defendants; and,

5. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's claims under the ADA and the NJLAD, as set forth in Count Four of the Amended Complaint are GRANTED with respect to all defendants; and,

6. The motions for summary judgment on Santiago's state law claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution, as set forth in Count Five of the Amended Complaint, are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.