Mfs Inc. v. Dilazaro
Decision Date | 16 February 2011 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 08–2508. |
Citation | 771 F.Supp.2d 382 |
Parties | MFS, INC., Plaintiff,v.Thomas A. DiLAZARO, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas J. Zagami, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Columbia, MD, Wayne C. Stansfield, Brooke N. Wallace, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.Randall J. Henzes, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, Douglas G. White, Norristown, PA, for Defendants.
On February 17, 2010, a ten-day jury trial commenced in this case. On March 3, 2010, the Jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Mineral Fiber Services, Inc. (“MFS”) on nearly all of its claims. The Jury found Defendants Thomas DiLazaro, Michael Bedrin, Mark Wejkszner, and Sean Robbins each liable in his individual capacity. Defendants DiLazaro, Bedrin, and Wejkszner were employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP” or “Department”). Defendant Robbins was an attorney employed by the Pennsylvania Governor's Office assigned to the PaDEP. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of MFS and against Defendant DiLazaro in the amount of $2,600,000; against Defendant Bedrin in the amount of $1,625,000; against Defendant Wejkszner in the amount of $650,000; and against Defendant Robbins in the amount of $1,625,000. On March 5, 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of MFS and against each Defendant for the amount awarded by the Jury. (Doc. No. 115.)
Before the Court is Defendants' Post–Trial Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. (Doc. No. 121.) 1 On June 30, 2010, MFS filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Post–Trial Motion. (Doc. No. 166.) On August 13, 2010, Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion. (Doc. No. 169.) Defendants' Post–Trial Motion is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow in this Opinion, the Court will grant Defendants' Post–Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, vacate the judgments entered against Defendants, and dismiss this case in its entirety.
On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff MFS filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The protected rights allegedly violated were the right to petition government for redress of grievances without retaliation (Count I), and the rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to substantive and procedural due process and to equal treatment under law (Count II). MFS also alleged that its right under Pennsylvania law not to be subjected to intentional interference with prospective contractual relations was violated (Count III). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff brought this suit against each Defendant in their individual capacity only, since an action against them in their official capacity or against the PaDEP is the same as one against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.
Defendants in this case are Thomas DiLazaro, the former Program Manager for the Air Quality Program of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; 2 Mark Wejkszner, the current Air Quality Program Manager of the Northeast Regional Office; Michael Bedrin, Regional Director of the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP; and Sean Robbins, the attorney assigned to the Northeast Regional Office of the PaDEP. The PaDEP is an executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responsible for administering and enforcing state environmental laws. While the PaDEP is not a party to this case, the individual Defendants worked for the PaDEP-directly or as counsel-during the relevant time period.3
After the Court ruled on numerous Motions in Limine (Doc. Nos. 82–89), the case proceeded to trial. Testimony of witnesses and exhibits admitted into evidence at trial are set forth infra.4
MFS owned a mineral wool manufacturing facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (James Hauff Trial Testimony [“Hauff”], February 17, 2010 [“2/17/10”], a.m. session [“a.m.”], 57:1–4.) MFS began operating the mineral wool plant in 1988, when it purchased the plant from Bethlehem Steel. ( Id. at 54:14–18.) James Hauff was employed by MFS from March 20, 1989 until January 10, 2007. ( Id. at 50:17–23.) Mr. Hauff was initially the quality control manager at MFS. In March 2002, he became the general manager. ( Id.) At any given time, MFS had between sixty and eighty employees. ( Id. at 74:2–3.)
Mineral wool is a fibrous material which is produced from several raw ingredients. The primary raw...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith & Morris Holdings, LLC v. Smith, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-14-803
...Andrews v. Bureau of Codes Admin. Office, No. 08-1669, 2012 WL 610333, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2012) (same); MFS, Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 440-41 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (same); Thornbury Noble, Ltd. v. Thornbury Twp., No. 99-6460, 2002 WL 442827, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2002) (same......
-
Dennis v. DeJong, Civil Action No. 10–cv–06789.
...confronting the official to determine whether a reasonable state actor could have believed his conduct was lawful. MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F.Supp.2d 382, 449 (E.D.Pa.2011) (internal quotation omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the determinatio......
-
Grant v. Winik, Civil Action No. 10–2204.
...and Sanford has therefore been applied by district courts in general substantive due process cases. See, e.g., MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F.Supp.2d 382, 439 (E.D.Pa.2011) (applying three standards delineated in Phillips ). 44. Notably, the Third Circuit has only applied the “deliberate indif......
-
Pioneer Aggregates, Inc. v. Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
...the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged any "deprivation of a constitutional right at all." See MFS Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 434 (E.D.Pa 2011) (quoting Culinary Service of Delaware Valley, Inc., v. Borough of Yardley, 385 F. App'x 135,141 (3d Cir. 2010). Plain......
-
FLINT OF OUTRAGE.
...adoption and suggesting that fundamental rights provide the only route to a substantive due process victory); MFS, Inc. v. DiLazaro, 771 F. Supp. 2d 382, 441 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (describing steps and concluding government conduct did not shock the conscience in land use approval case); cf. Stev......