DELTONDO v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PITTSBURGH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENISE DELTONDO,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-350

v. Hon. William S. Stickman IV

Hon. Patricia L. Dodge

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF

PITTSBURGH, et al,

Defendants.

ORDER OF COURT

Plaintiff Denise Deltondo (“Deltondo”) commenced this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 in February 2022, after her suspension and alleged constructive discharge as a

teacher. (ECF No. 1). She then filed a First Amended Complaint naming as Defendants the

School District of Pittsburgh, the Board of Public Education of the School District of Pittsburgh,

Anthony Hamlet, Tiffany R. Waskowicz, Dr. David May-Stein, Dr. Monica Lamar, Anne

Reckhouse, Sylvia Wilson, Kevin Carter, Terry Kennedy, Cynthia Falls, William J. Gallagher,

Pamela Harbin, Sala Udin, Veronica Edwards and Devon Taliaferro (collectively, “Defendants”).

(ECF No. 13). Deltondo brings the following claims against all Defendants in her First

Amended Complaint: Count 1 — First Amendment Retaliation for Expression; Count II — First

Amendment Retaliation for Political Affiliation; Count III — Procedural Due Process; and Count

IV — Declaratory and Equitable Relief - Name-Clearing Hearing. (/d. at 30-56).

I. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Denise Deltondo’s First Amended

Complaint with Prejudice (“motion”). (ECF No. 26). After the conclusion of briefing,

1 .

Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion be

granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 36). More specifically, she recommended that: (1)

the motion be granted in that Counts II, III and IV be dismissed with prejudice; (2) the motion be

granted in that all claims against the individual School Board members (Sylvia Wilson, Kevin

Carter, Terry Kennedy, Cynthia Falls, William J. Gallagher, Pamela Harbin, Sala Udin, Veronica

Edwards and Devon Taliaferro) and Dr. David May-Stein (the Chief of School Performance), Dr.

Monica Lamar (Assistant Superintendent) and Anne Reckhouse (Specialist for Workforce

Management) be dismissed with prejudice; (3) the motion be denied as to Count I and it should

proceed against the remaining Defendants; and (4) the motion be denied as premature as to

Deltondo’s demand for punitive damages.’ (/d). The parties were given the opportunity to file

objections. Objections were filed as well as responses to objections. (ECF Nos. 39-42).

Defendants want the Court to dismiss with prejudice Count I, all claims against Anthony Hamlet

(former Superintendent) and Tiffany R. Waskowicz (Director of Employee Relations), and

Deltondo’s punitive damage request. Essentially, they want Deltondo’s entire First Amended

Complaint dismissed. (ECF No. 39). In contrast, Deltondo seeks to have all the counts in her

First Amended Complaint proceed to discovery. (ECF No. 40).

Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de

novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Jd. Following de

novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;

receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.

' Deltondo is not seeking punitive damages against the municipal defendants. (ECF No. 29, at p.

19).

Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Upon review of Magistrate Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendation, the

objections, the responses to objections, and Court’s de novo review of the record in this matter,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all objections (ECF Nos. 29 and 40) to Magistrate Judge

Dodge’s Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Court has exercised its de novo

review and concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge’s thorough analysis and her legal conclusions.

The Court has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the same reasons expressed

in the comprehensive Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby APOPTS

Magistrate Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendation as its Opinion.

I. Motion to Strike

Magistrate Judge Dodge also issued a Memorandum Order granting in part and denying

in part Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). (ECF No. 36). The

following paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint were struck: Paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 10, 20,

21, 23, 26, 33, 34, 35, 42, 45, 49, 59, 60, 64, 71, 74, 75, 76, 80, 86, 96, 97, 101, 102, 124, 128(a),

164, 165, 168, 169(a), 170, 181, 186, 187, 189, 193, 194 and 218.* (id. at p. 8). The Court

agrees with Magistrate Judge Dodge that Deltondo made many unnecessary and impertinent

allegations about Defendants that are immaterial, irrelevant, pejorative, derogatory and unduly

prejudicial. These allegations are not compliant with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8. Furthermore, the First Amended Complaint is rife with unnecessary citations to

and quotes from case law. The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge’s comment that,

“Deltondo’s approach to pleading her claims, which was unchanged even after a Court-ordered

2 As Magistrate Judge Dodge recommended dismissal of Counts II, III and IV, she found it

unnecessary to strike various paragraphs related to those counts referencing legal terms and

causes of action not at issue as well as scandalous, impertinent and irrelevant references. (ECF

No. 36, p. 6).

meet and confer, is not in conformity with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.” (ECF No. 36, p. 8).

To the extent that the last sentence in Deltondo’s objections (i.e., “To the extent the

paragraphs in the complaint are relied upon in these objections, they should not be stricken as

they are pertinent and material.” (ECF No. 40, p. 21)) is an objection to Judge Dodge’s

Memorandum Order, it is vague and does not specifically state the objection and the basis for the

objection to each stricken paragraph. The Court’s standard of review for non-dispositive matters

is whether the ruling was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);

accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b); Local Civil Rule 72.1(C)(2); see also Cipollone v. Liggett

Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1113 (3d Cir. 1986). That is certainly not the case here, and the

Court will not alter Magistrate Judge Dodge’s decision. If anything, the Court would be more

inclined to strike additional portions of the First Amended Complaint. But, in the interest of

advancing this litigation, the Court will not strike many of the other allegations that it views as

redundant and immaterial.

The Court takes this opportunity to express its concern about the tone of Deltondo’s

pleadings, which are unnecessarily laced with anger and dangerously close to crossing the line

between zealous advocacy and inappropriate and antagonistic behavior. The Court expects

civility from the parties and that they behave fairly toward one another in the course of this

action.? Uncivil behavior does not constitute effective advocacy; rather, it serves to increase

litigation costs and fails to advance a client’s lawful interests. No further incivility, pejorative

and/or derogatory language in pleadings will be countenanced. It detracts from the substantive

merits of the case and the Court will not become preoccupied with policing conduct.

3 The rules of professional conduct adopted by this Court are the rules of professional conduct

adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. LCvR 83.3.

UWI. Conclusion

AND NOW, this _! @ day of March 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Denise Deltondo’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice (ECF

No. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Counts II, II and IV of the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.‘

2. All claims in the First Amended Complaint against Sylvia Wilson, Kevin Carter,

Terry Kennedy, Cynthia Falls, William J. Gallagher, Pamela Harbin, Sala Udin,

Veronica Edwards, Devon Taliaferro, Dr. David May-Stein, Dr. Monica Lamar and

Anne Reckhouse are DISMISSED WITH PREDJUDICE, and these defendants are

TERMINATED as parties.

3. Count I of the First Amended Complaint will proceed against the remaining

defendants — the School District of Pittsburgh, the Board of Public Education of the

School District of Pittsburgh, Anthony Hamlet and Tiffany R. Waskowicz.

4, Deltondo’s claim for punitive damages against the non-municipal defendants can

proceed as it is premature for the Court to resolve at this stage of the proceedings.

* Deltondo has already filed two complaints, and despite a meet and confer with Magistrate

Judge Dodge, she refused to resolve deficiency issues with her First Amended Complaint. (ECF

No. 36, p. 1). Any further amendment by Deltondo would be futile in the eyes of the Court. See

In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (Gd Cir. 1997) (a court may

decide to deny leave to amend for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive,

prejudice, and futility). “An amendment is futile if it merely restates the same facts as the

original complaint in different terms, reasserts a claim on which the court previously ruled, fails

to state a legal theory, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss.” 3 James Wm. Moore et al.,

Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.15 (Gd ed. 2021).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court hereby AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Dodge’s

January 30, 2023 Memorandum Order (ECF No. 36).

BY THE COURT:

DLA —& Siz

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE