Dennis v. DeJong
| Decision Date | 30 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10–cv–06789. |
| Citation | 867 F.Supp.2d 588 |
| Parties | Reginald DENNIS, Renee Dennis and B.D., a minor, Plaintiffs v. Allan R. DeJONG, M.D.; Nemours Foundation; Mary Germond; Meta Wertz; Beth Prodoehl; Patricia McGettigan; Gina Giancristiforo; Edward Speedling; Cindy W. Christian, M.D.; Pennsylvania State University Hershey Medical School; Danielle B. Boal, M.D.; Kathleen D. Eggli, M.D.; G. Michael Green; Michael R. Galantino; Dr. Doe and County of Delaware, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark D. Freeman, Esq., for Plaintiffs.
Sara Petrosky, Esq., for Defendants Allan R. DeJong, M.D., Nemours Foundation, and Edward Speedling.
Suzanne McDonough, Esq., for Defendants Mary Germond, Meta Wertz, Beth Prodoehl, Patricia McGettigan, Gina Giancristiforo, and County of Delaware.
A. Michael Pratt, Esq., Frank H. Griffin, VI, Esq., for Defendant Cindy W. Christian, M.D.
Kim Kocher, Esq., Thomas M. Goutman, Esq., for Defendants Pennsylvania State University Hershey Medical School, Danielle B. Boal, M.D., and Kathleen D. Eggli, M.D.
Mark Alan Raith, Esq., for Defendants G. Michael Green and Michael R. Galantino.
This matter is before the court on five defense motions to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint.
On November 19, 2010 plaintiffs Reginald Dennis and Renee Dennis, and their son, B.D., a minor,1 filed a nineteen-count civil Complaint in this matter. The Complaint alleges that numerous defendants violated their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985. The Complaint also alleges negligence, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Pennsylvania state law.
The Complaint arises from the temporary removal of B.D. from his parents' custody. Specifically, paragraph 5 of the Complaint alleges, in part:
On December 9, 2009 B.D. was removed from his parents by an ex parte order obtained when Delaware County Children and Youth Services employees made reckless misrepresentations to the Delaware County Court without any opportunity for Reggie and Renee to be heard. Thereafter, B.D. was placed in foster care and separated from his mother, Renee, for nine months and was separated from his father, Reggie, for over one year in violation of his constitutional rights.
Complaint, paragraph 5.
Plaintiffs request an award against defendants of compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
The five motions filed by defendants, and the responses of plaintiffs, which are before the court, are as follows.
On January 7, 2011, defendants Mary Germond, Meta Wertz, Beth Prodoehl, 2 Patricia McGettigan, Gina Giancristiforo and the County of Delaware filed a motion to dismiss.3 Plaintiffs responded on January 20, 2011. 4
On January 13, 2011, defendants G. Michael Green and Michael R. Galantino filed a motion to dismiss.5 Plaintiffs responded on January 27, 2011.6
On January 18, 2011, defendants Pennsylvania State University Hershey Medical School, Danielle K. Boal, M.D., and Kathleen D. Eggli, M.D. filed a motion to dismiss.7 Plaintiffs responded on February 7, 2011.8
On January 19, 2011, defendants Allan R. DeJong, M.D., Nemours Foundation and Edward Speedling filed a motion to dismiss.9 Plaintiffs responded on February 1, 2011.10
Finally, on January 28, 2011, defendant Cindy W. Christian, M.D. filed a motion to dismiss.11 Plaintiffs responded on February 16, 2011. 12
Oral argument on defendants' motions was held before me on June 17, 2011. At the conclusion of oral argument, the matter was taken under advisement. Hence this Opinion.
For the reasons expressed below, the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint filed by defendants Mary Germond, Meta Wertz, Beth Prodoehl, Patricia McGettigan, Gina Giancristiforo and the County of Delaware is granted in part and denied in part. The four motions to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint filed by the remaining defendants are each granted.13
As a result, plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice regarding the following counts of the Complaint:
Count I: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against defendant Delaware County for deputizing an employee of Delaware County Children and Youth Services to act as a deputy clerk of court for all dependency matters in place of the county's Office of Judicial Support;
Count II: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against CYS employees, defendants Wertz, McGettigan, and Giancristiforo, for an alleged delay in filing an ex parte memorandum with the court concerning termination of plaintiff parents' parental rights;
Count IV: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendant Delaware County for the alleged policy of delaying the scheduling of dependency hearings;
Count VI: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Delaware County for CYS's reliance on defendant Dr. DeJong's investigations, reports and testimony;
Count VII: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Dr. DeJong for multiple misrepresentations of medical findings to support false accusations of child abuse and related actions;
Count VIII: plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 against defendants Dr. DeJong, Wertz, McGettigan and Speedling for conspiring to deprive plaintiffs of their equal protection and due process rights based on gender bias and racial animus in their entirety;
Count IX: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against defendants Dr. DeJong, Germond, Wertz, McGettigan, Giancristiforo, and Delaware County for adopting the medical presumption that a subdural hematoma (“SDH”) is caused by abuse as a legal presumption in dependency and criminal cases;
Count X: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against defendant Delaware County for failing to properly train CYS workers, supervisors and administrators about dependency proceedings;
Count XI: plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985 against defendants Dr. DeJong, Dr. Christian, Dr. Boal and Deputy District Attorney Galantino for conspiring to misrepresent medical evidence concerning the age of B.D.'s subdural hematoma to deprive Mr. Dennis of his equal protection and due process rights;
Count XV: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law negligence claim against defendant Dr. Doe in its entirety; and
Count XIX: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law claim against defendant Dr. DeJong for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs to file a more specific amended complaint regarding their claims in the following counts of the Complaint:
Count I: plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendments claims against defendant County of Delaware (“Delaware County”) in their entirety;
Count II: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the representations in the ex parte memorandum made by defendants Patricia McGettigan, Meta Wertz, and Gina Giancristiforo, and plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendments claims against those defendants in their entirety;
Count IV: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendants McGettigan and Delaware County, and Fourth and Fifth Amendments claims against those defendants in their entirety;
Count V: plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendments claims against Delaware County in their entirety;
Count VI: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against defendant Delaware County District Attorney G. Michael Green (“District Attorney Green”) for District Attorney Green's reliance on defendant Allen R. DeJong, M.D.'s (“Dr. DeJong”) investigations, reports and testimony;
Count IX: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against District Attorney Green and Delaware County Deputy District Attorney Michael R. Galantino (“Deputy District Attorney Galantino”) for adopting the medical presumption that a subdural hematoma (“SDH”) is caused by abuse as a legal presumption in criminal cases;
Count X: plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims against defendants Mary Germond, Wertz, McGettigan, and Giancristiforo for failing properly train Delaware County Children and Services (“CYS”) workers, supervisors and administrators about dependency proceedings, and plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendments claims against defendants Germond, Wertz, McGettigan, Giancristiforo, and Delaware County in their entirety;
Count XI: plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Dr. DeJong, Cindy W. Christian, M.D. (“Dr. Christian”), Danielle K. Boal, M.D. (“Dr. Boal”), and Deputy District Attorney Galantino for conspiring to misrepresent medical evidence concerning the age of B.D.'s subdural hematoma to deprive Mr. Dennis of his equal protection and due process rights in their entirety;
Count XII: plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments claims against defendants District Attorney Green and Deputy District Attorney Galantino in their entirety;
Count XIII: plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Kathleen D. Eggli, M.D. (“Dr. Eggli”) and Nemours Foundation in their entirety;
Count XIV: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law negligence claim against defendant Nemours Foundation in its entirety;
Count XVI: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law claim against defendants Germond,Wertz, McGettigan, and Giancristiforo for malicious prosecution in its entirety;
Count XVII: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law claim against defendant Deputy District Attorney Galantino for malicious prosecution in its entirety;
Count XVIII: plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state-law claim against defendants Dr. DeJong, Wertz, McGettigan, and Edward...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinton v. Garrett
...plaintiff show the defendants acted in concert "with the specific intent to violate the [plaintiff's] right"); Dennis v. DeJong, 867 F. Supp. 2d 588, 650 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (noting a § 1983 conspiracy claim requires a showing of "actions taken in concert by defendants with the specific intent ......
-
Damiano v. Scranton Sch. Dist.
...in Count X is PERMITTED TO PROCEED against all defendants regarding only her First Amendment retaliation claims. See Dennis v. DeJong, 867 F.Supp.2d 588, 650 (E.D.Pa.2011) ("A section 1983 conspiracy claim requires proof that two or more conspirators reached an agreement to deprive Plaintif......
-
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. Mckenna
...are unopposed , and the [first amended complaint] should be dismissed by the Court on that basis." (Id. (citing Dennis v. DeJong, 867 F. Supp. 2d 588, 622 (E.D. Pa. 2011) ; Toth v. Bristol Twp., 215 F. Supp. 2d 595, 598 (E.D. Pa. 2002) ; Smith v. Nat’l Flood Ins. Program of FEMA, 156 F Supp......
- Dennis v. Dejong