This case involves a supplier, Fabral, Inc., suing three B&B companies and their principal Gary Brewster for nonpayment of construction materials under a credit agreement and personal guaranty, with claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; the defendants had asserted counterclaims that were later withdrawn. The court granted partial summary judgment, entering judgment on Count I against B & B Metals, LLC for $1,039,822.37 and against B & B Metals of Middlesboro, Inc. for $498,136.98 based on undisputed facts showing acceptance of goods without payment under applicable UCC rules, but denied summary judgment against B & B Roofing Co., Inc. It also granted summary judgment on Count II against Brewster for the combined amount of $1,537,959.35 plus interest from the date of demand. The court dismissed Count III as moot and dismissed the motion as moot regarding the withdrawn counterclaims.
In this civil rights action, African-American plaintiff Brian White sued police Sergeant Jack Brommer and the Borough of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1981 after his arrest on public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges, which he alleged lacked probable cause, followed by his termination from employment as a bar doorman after the officer contacted his employer. The court addressed the defendants' partial motion to dismiss, denying dismissal of Count I because plaintiff conceded he was not pursuing a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claim remained unchallenged. It also denied dismissal of Count II, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged that the officer knowingly provided false information to support a malicious prosecution claim. For Count III, the court dismissed the § 1981 claim against the Borough for failure to plead a Monell failure-to-train claim but allowed the claim against the individual officer to proceed.
This case was a civil rights action brought by three plaintiffs against Lancaster City and several police officers, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and failure to investigate after the plaintiffs were arrested in connection with a 2005 dispute over ownership of a 1992 Oldsmobile Bravada. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims brought by Adrian Sanchez and Althea Sanchez, and dismissed most claims by Ivy Jo Eckman against most officers, including all claims against Lancaster City and Officer Luciano after the parties stipulated to their dismissal. However, the court denied summary judgment on Eckman's federal and state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and punitive damages against Sergeant Damon Greathouse, as well as her related request for attorneys' fees, because material factual disputes remained regarding whether probable cause existed for her July 2005 arrest. The court concluded that Greathouse was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because it could not determine as a matter of law that he reasonably but mistakenly believed probable cause existed.
The case involved a dispute between Arif Atiyeh, trading as WOW Outlet, and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford regarding a commercial insurance policy after the plaintiff suffered a covered loss. Following dismissal of a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371 in the handling of the insurance claim. The court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the amended complaint, concluding that it contained only conclusory legal statements rather than sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under the pleading standards from Twombly and Iqbal.
This case involved a former employee's lawsuit against St. Luke's Hospital alleging that his termination for sexually harassing a coworker was actually due to gender discrimination under Title VII and because he was regarded as disabled under the ADA, with related claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff had again failed to plead sufficient facts to state plausible claims under the required standards. The decision rested on the conclusion that the amended pleadings did not remedy deficiencies identified in the original complaint, such as inadequate allegations of discriminatory animus or perceived disability. The court dismissed the alternative summary judgment motion as moot and denied the request for attorneys' fees, noting that the claims were not frivolous.
In this case, plaintiff Gehman sued defendant Argent Mortgage Company alleging violations of federal laws including the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as well as various Pennsylvania state statutes, based on the defendant's alleged failure to disclose key mortgage loan terms such as a variable interest rate when financing the purchase of real property through a mortgage broker. The court granted Argent's motion for summary judgment in part, entering judgment for the defendant on all federal claims after deeming the defendant's statement of material facts admitted due to the plaintiff's failure to respond or submit evidence creating genuine issues of fact. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them as moot. Core reasoning included the absence of any triable issues on the federal claims under the summary judgment standard and the legal unavailability of rescission under TILA for residential mortgage transactions financing property acquisition.