# DELTONDO v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PITTSBURGH

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · March 16, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418614

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 16, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418614

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10418614. Public record. Not legal advice.