Price et al v. Scranton School District, No. 3:2011cv00095 - Document 119 (M.D. Pa. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 78 Motion to Dismiss; granting 80 Motion to Dismiss; granting 82 Motion to Dismiss; granting 84 Motion to Dismiss; granting 87 Motion to Dismiss; granting 88 Motion to Dismiss; granting 90 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 93 (a)Motion to Dismiss Count I by Scranton School District is DENIED(b)Motion to Dismiss Count II by Scranton School District is DENIED(c)Motion to Dismiss Count II by Defendants Lesh, Sheridan, King and Dixon in their official capacities is GRANTED(d)Motion to Dismiss Count II by Defendants Lesh, Sheridan, King and Dixon in their individual capacities is GRANTED(e)Motion to Dismiss Count II by Rogan, Rose, Julie Maloney, Rossi, Lloyd, Michael, and Schaef fer is GRANTED(f)Motion to Dismiss Count III by Dixon and Schaeffer is GRANTED(g)Motion to Dismiss Count V by Julie Maloney, Lloyd, Rossi, Michael, Dixon, and Schaeffer is GRANTED(h)Motion to Dismiss Count VI by Scranton School District is GRANTED(i) Motion to Dismiss Count VI by Defendants Lesh, Sheridan, King, and Dixon in their official capacities is GRANTEDG) Motion to Dismiss Count VI by Defendants Lesh, Sheridan, King, and Dixon in their individual capacities is GRANTED(k) Motion to Dismiss Count VI by Rogan, Rose, Julie Maloney, Rossi, Lloyd, Michael, or Schaeffer is GRANTED Motion to Dismiss; granting 95 Motion to Dismiss. The claims that remain in this case are:(a)Count I: violation of20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (Title IX) agai nst Scranton School District(b)Count II: violation of substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Scranton School District. Scranton School District shall file an answer to the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 71) within 20 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Honorable Joel H. Slomsky on 1/6/2012 (bg, )