Nora Barry Fischer

This case involves the parents of a deceased U.S. Army staff sergeant suing military contractor KBR for negligence in electrical maintenance services at a base in Iraq, which allegedly caused the soldier's electrocution death while showering; the claims were brought under Pennsylvania wrongful death and survival statutes. The narrow issue before the court was KBR's motion to apply Iraqi law to the tort claims. The court denied the motion. Its core reasoning was that a choice-of-law analysis did not support applying Iraqi Civil Code provisions on wrongful acts and compensation, given the parties' U.S. domiciles (Pennsylvania and Texas/Delaware), the location of the incident on a U.S.-controlled military base, the U.S. Army contract at issue, and the effect of Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 on any Iraqi-law analysis.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a constitutional challenge by Project Vote and ACORN to Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1713, which criminalizes giving, soliciting, or accepting payment or financial incentives for voter registrations when based on the number obtained. The plaintiffs argued that the statute, both facially and as applied by the Allegheny County District Attorney in prosecuting former ACORN canvassers paid hourly wages despite aspirational production goals, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied it to the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs' conduct—hourly compensation without commissions tied to registration numbers—fell outside the statute's prohibition, that the District Attorney's charges rested on a misreading of the law, and that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face or as properly applied.

electionsfree speechcriminal law

This case arose from the death of a 10-month-old child at a privately operated daycare center in 2008, after which the child's mother sued several Pennsylvania state officials in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged that the officials violated the child's due process rights by failing to adequately regulate or inspect the daycare, invoking the state-created danger exception to the rule in DeShaney v. Winnebago County. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that state officials affirmatively created or increased the danger to the child or that any special relationship existed that would impose a constitutional duty to protect.

civil rights

In this case, plaintiff Charles Chisler, a corrections officer trainee, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections employees, alleging he was violently attacked and hog-tied during required training and that supervisors later threatened him to prevent a truthful report. During discovery, Chisler moved to compel production of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigative file concerning a suicide at another facility, which he argued was relevant to proving an informal custom or policy of workplace violence and hazing across state institutions. The DOC opposed on grounds of relevance and asserted government documents and deliberative process privileges. After in camera review, the court granted the motion to compel but ordered the documents produced under seal with limited redactions, finding the materials relevant under Rule 26 and determining that the privileges did not bar disclosure when balanced against the need for the evidence and privacy protections.

civil rightsprocedure

The case was an appeal by Michael Corso from a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding against his ex-wife Maryann Walker, concerning whether certain student loan debts were nondischargeable in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Corso argued the debts qualified as exceptions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) for education loans, § 523(a)(2) due to alleged fraud in the marital settlement agreement, and § 523(a)(15) as obligations from a divorce agreement. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that none of these exceptions applied, holding that Walker was not a party to the original loans, the settlement agreement did not involve false representations or fraud, and the debts did not meet the criteria for nondischargeability under the cited provisions given the facts and applicable bankruptcy discharge rules.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a constitutional challenge by Melissa Burns, owner of a Pennsylvania childcare facility, to provisions of the state's Child Protective Services Law governing the investigation and classification of suspected child abuse reports. Burns alleged that a state official's determination classifying her as an indicated perpetrator and entering her name in the central register violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as the finding lacked substantial evidence and affected her ability to operate the facility. The court considered a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing certain procedural and substantive due process claims to proceed based on the allegations that the process and evidence were constitutionally inadequate while dismissing others.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involves a former male nurse who sued his nursing home employer and supervisors, alleging sex and age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and the PHRA, stemming from alleged harassment tied to his prior work as a male stripper and emcee. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence to support the hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding-and-abetting claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the record, finding that some claims lacked sufficient evidentiary support while others presented genuine issues of material fact warranting further proceedings.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case addressed whether a defendant convicted of distributing, receiving, and possessing child pornography could be ordered to pay restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 to a victim depicted in the images, even though the defendant had no role in the victim's original abuse or the images' creation. The court held that restitution is available in such circumstances, ruling that the victim qualifies as a "victim" under the statute and that proximate causation between the offenses and the victim's ongoing harm can be shown. The court reasoned that the statute's broad language encompasses harms from continued viewing and distribution of the images, that joint and several liability among multiple offenders may apply, and that such awards do not violate the Sixth or Eighth Amendments.

criminal lawprocedure

The EEOC sued Hussey Copper Ltd. under the ADA, alleging that the company discriminated against applicant Donald Teaford, a recovering opiate addict participating in a methadone program, by withdrawing his conditional offer for a production laborer position after learning of his treatment and medical history. Hussey moved for summary judgment, arguing that Teaford was not a qualified individual with a disability and posed a direct threat to workplace safety in the mill environment. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Teaford's qualifications, whether he was regarded as disabled or had a record of disability, and the company's direct-threat defense under the ADA. The decision allows the case to proceed toward trial on claims for injunctive relief and damages.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a toxic tort lawsuit in which plaintiffs Robert and Elizabeth Pritchard alleged that Mr. Pritchard's exposure to Dursban insecticide products containing chlorpyrifos, manufactured and sold by defendants Dow Agro Sciences and Southern Mill Creek Products, caused him to develop Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, leading to claims of negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. The court considered defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Bennet Omalu on both general and specific causation. The court granted the motion, holding that Dr. Omalu was not qualified to offer the opinions, that his causation analysis failed to meet the reliability requirements of Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because it relied on speculation rather than accepted scientific methods and procedures, and that the opinions did not fit the facts of the case. The decision rested on the need for expert testimony in such cases to be grounded in reliable science and expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty under applicable standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involved plaintiff Charles Jackson alleging that Pittsburgh police officers violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with state tort claims, during a 2001 traffic stop. The plaintiff claimed he was assaulted, his vehicle was unlawfully searched and towed, he was arrested without basis, and he was denied medical care before jail. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and after reviewing the disputed facts about the stop, license status, search procedures, and qualified immunity issues, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The decision turned on whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the officers' conduct and whether certain claims were barred as a matter of law.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a former township police chief who sued the township and its supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his demotion from police chief to patrolman and eventual termination violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiff alleged retaliation for refusing to sign a reelection petition while in uniform, supporting his brother's campaign for supervisor, criticizing the township's hiring and compensation practices for another employee, and receiving workers' compensation benefits after an on-the-job injury. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding that most of the plaintiff's activities did not qualify as protected speech on matters of public concern under the First Amendment or were not causally linked to the adverse actions, while allowing limited aspects of the claim to proceed.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employmentelections

This case involved property owners challenging the condemnation of their land by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County and related local officials and entities for transfer to a private economic development corporation to build an industrial park known as Millennium Park. The plaintiffs alleged that the takings violated the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause and Due Process Clause, as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, claiming the blight designation was pretextual and the actions were arbitrary. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal constitutional claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the condemnations served a legitimate public purpose of economic development and were rationally related to that interest without infringing fundamental rights. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an employment discrimination dispute in which plaintiff Karen Malone alleged that her former employer, the Economy Borough Municipal Authority, and two of its officials retaliated against her for filing a 2005 gender discrimination charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission by creating a hostile work environment and ultimately terminating her. The claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, after her Title VII claim was dismissed by stipulation. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation and whether the employer's stated reasons for termination were pretextual, while also addressing qualified immunity defenses for the individual defendants and municipal liability.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech

This case arose from ongoing child support enforcement proceedings in Pennsylvania state court, where pro se plaintiff Lynn Van Tassel alleged that her ex-husband, county domestic relations officials, a judge, and an attorney committed irregularities in calculating support arrears and liens, violating her First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and retaliated against her by initiating criminal complaints and a protection order. The plaintiff sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in full. The core reasoning was that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state court judgments, judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity protected the judge and county agency, and the ex-husband and private attorney were not state actors subject to § 1983 liability.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which the relator alleges that Bombardier Transportation overstated the value of work awarded to and performed by a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) subcontractor on a federally funded BART rail-car reconditioning project, thereby submitting false DBE compliance certifications to obtain payment. The court addressed multiple motions in limine filed before the scheduled trial, focusing on the admissibility of evidence concerning damages to the federal DBE program and the qualifications of proposed witnesses. Applying Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 701, the court examined whether a BART senior civil rights officer could testify from personal knowledge about the program's purpose, the falsity of the defendant's reports, and resulting harm, while distinguishing between lay testimony on BART's monitoring role and any technical opinions on nationwide federal contracting impacts. The opinion sets parameters for trial evidence without resolving the underlying merits of the FCA claims.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

This case involved an appeal by the Internal Revenue Service from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 11 reorganization of debtor Kirk G. Johnson. The bankruptcy court had permitted Johnson to strip the IRS federal tax lien from his real property, which had a fair market value exceeded by a senior mortgage and county tax lien. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that sections 506(a) and 1123(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code authorized the treatment of the IRS claim as secured only to the extent of the value of its collateral and allowed modification of the lien rights in the confirmed plan. The court noted that the IRS had stipulated to the amount of its secured claim based on Johnson's equity in personal property and that the real property lien could be avoided to the extent it lacked supporting value.

taxesproperty

In Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., the plaintiffs brought wrongful death and survival claims against KBR, a military contractor, alleging that KBR's negligent maintenance of electrical and plumbing systems at a U.S. Army base in Iraq proximately caused the electrocution death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth while he showered. KBR moved to dismiss under Rule 12, arguing that the claims raised non-justiciable political questions or were preempted by the combatant activities exception to the FTCA. After limited discovery, the court denied the motion, holding that the claims were justiciable and not preempted because they turned on whether KBR breached duties arising from its LOGCAP contract, course of conduct, or state tort law, without requiring the court to second-guess core military decisions.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves counterclaims by Allegheny Energy against its former in-house attorney, Toni Nesselrotte, for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract after her termination. Nesselrotte had downloaded numerous confidential documents, including attorney-client privileged materials, from her work computer without permission in the weeks before her employment ended, in violation of her signed confidentiality agreement that required her to safeguard such information and return all copies upon termination. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on liability for the counterclaims and on their after-acquired evidence affirmative defense, finding that Nesselrotte's actions constituted clear breaches supported by the agreement's terms and her common-law duties as an attorney. The ruling limits or precludes her remedies in the underlying litigation based on the misconduct discovered after her termination.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves federal criminal charges against Samuel J. Manfredi and Marilyn T. Manfredi for conspiracy to evade income taxes, file false tax returns, and structure currency transactions, along with related substantive counts, arising from their operation of a Pennsylvania modeling and talent agency between 1998 and 2004. The indictment alleges that the defendants failed to deposit all cash business receipts into company accounts and instead used cash for personal purchases while providing incomplete records to their accountant. The district court opinion addresses a series of pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss counts for alleging multiple conspiracies or failing to state offenses, motions for bills of particulars, and a motion for severance of the co-defendants. The court had previously denied several discovery-related motions and, in this order, evaluates the sufficiency of the indictment and the appropriateness of joinder under applicable federal rules and case law.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure