MANCO v. St. Joseph's University
5:22-cv-00285-JLS
| E.D. Pa. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Gregory V. Manco, Ph.D., sued St. Joseph’s University and others in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 5:22-cv-00285-JLS).
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court dismissed Manco's civil conspiracy claim with prejudice.
- Manco moved for partial reconsideration and/or leave to file a third amended complaint to reassert conspiracy claims, which the court denied.
- Manco then sought certification for interlocutory appeal on the dismissal of his conspiracy claims and denial of amendment.
- The court denied interlocutory appeal, concluding that Manco failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), particularly showing a controlling question of law and that an immediate appeal would materially advance litigation.
- Plaintiff had previously stated he was not seeking a stay, but later requested one during oral argument, further undercutting his position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of conspiracy claim should | Mixed motive test should apply and standard met for civil conspiracy claim. | Court properly applied standard; dismissal appropriate. | Dismissal with prejudice upheld. |
| Whether to allow third amended complaint | Should be permitted to add 107 new allegations to support conspiracy claim. | Amendment is unduly delayed and unfairly burdensome. | Denied; new allegations late, unfair burden on defense. |
| Whether orders qualify for interlocutory appeal | Orders involve controlling questions of law under §1292(b); appeal is justified. | No controlling question of law; no material advancement. | Denied; requirements for appeal not satisfied. |
| Whether a stay pending appeal is justified | Initially not requested, but later sought to stay for appeal resolution. | Stay prolongs litigation, not justified. | Stay not warranted; would delay outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (defining controlling question of law for interlocutory appeal)
- Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1997) (unsupported, conclusory arguments deemed waived)
- Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001) (recognized limits on amendments that cause unfair burden)
- Sander v. Light Action, Inc., [citation="525 F. App'x 147"] (3d Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of late-sought complaint amendments)