BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH

W.D. Pennsylvania

BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH

DecidedMarch 31, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-00115

StatusUnknown

This text of BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH (BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH, (W.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RACHEL BOHNENKAMP. ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:19-cv-00115-RAL ) vs. ) ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO JAMES WUSTERBARTH, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE et al., ) ) ORDER SCHEDULING ORAL ) ARGUMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL ) BRIEFING )

Presently pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendant United States of America (ECF No. 39) and Defendant James Wusterbarth (ECF No. 47). In reviewing the Parties’ submissions regarding the United States’ motion, the Court has identified an issue of law that the parties have not adequately addressed in their briefs—specifically; assuming Wusterbarth acted within the scope of his employment, do aspects of Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion claims fall outside of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “intentional tort” exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)? Compare, McCluskey v. United States, 2010 WL 4024717, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2010), with Ruddy v. United States, 2011 WL 5834953, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2011) and Jense v. Runyon, 990 F. Supp. 1320, 1330 (D. Utah 1998). The Parties are directed to file supplemental briefs on this issue on or before Wednesday, April 14, 2021. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Further, the Court will hear oral argument on the motions to dismiss on Friday, April 16, 2021, at 11:00 AM. Oral argument will be conducted by video conference and instructions for accessing the Court’s video conferencing application will be emailed to Counsel prior to the hearing. In addition, a telephonic status conference will be scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2021, beginning at 10:00 AM. At that time, the Court will provide further clarification of its concerns and questions for Counsel. Pending receipt of the supplemental briefing and further argument, the Court will terminate the pending motions to dismiss, to be reactivated following oral argument. So ordered this 31° day of March 2021.

= : z ; 2 > Z, RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RACHEL BOHNENKAMP. ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:19-cv-00115-RAL ) vs. ) ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO JAMES WUSTERBARTH, ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE et al., ) ) ORDER SCHEDULING ORAL ) ARGUMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL ) BRIEFING )

Presently pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendant United States of America (ECF No. 39) and Defendant James Wusterbarth (ECF No. 47). In reviewing the Parties’ submissions regarding the United States’ motion, the Court has identified an issue of law that the parties have not adequately addressed in their briefs—specifically; assuming Wusterbarth acted within the scope of his employment, do aspects of Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion claims fall outside of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “intentional tort” exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)? Compare, McCluskey v. United States, 2010 WL 4024717, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2010), with Ruddy v. United States, 2011 WL 5834953, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2011) and Jense v. Runyon, 990 F. Supp. 1320, 1330 (D. Utah 1998). The Parties are directed to file supplemental briefs on this issue on or before Wednesday, April 14, 2021. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Further, the Court will hear oral argument on the motions to dismiss on Friday, April 16, 2021, at 11:00 AM. Oral argument will be conducted by video conference and instructions for accessing the Court’s video conferencing application will be emailed to Counsel prior to the hearing. In addition, a telephonic status conference will be scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2021, beginning at 10:00 AM. At that time, the Court will provide further clarification of its concerns and questions for Counsel. Pending receipt of the supplemental briefing and further argument, the Court will terminate the pending motions to dismiss, to be reactivated following oral argument. So ordered this 31° day of March 2021.

= : z ; 2 > Z, RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohnenkamp-v-whisterbarth-pawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack