James Knoll Gardner

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with claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; the defendants had asserted counterclaims that were later withdrawn.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 The court dismissed Count III as moot and dismissed the motion as moot regarding the withdrawn counterclaims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal in which debtor StingFree Technologies Company challenged the bankruptcy court's dismissal of its Chapter 11 petition. The district court affirmed the dismissal after finding that the petition was filed in bad faith, primarily due to StingFree's disputes with former officers over a stock redemption and settlement agreement that included a promissory note, security interests in patents, and mutual releases. The court also denied a motion to intervene by Fonika Ventures and determined that the underlying disputes, including state-law claims, fell within the scope of the agreement's mandatory arbitration clause and were unlikely to succeed on the merits in bankruptcy proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Elijah McNeil suing the City of Easton and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations including unlawful entry, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and excessive force, along with related Monell municipal liability claims and pendent state-law tort claims arising from a police encounter and arrest at his residence. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, entered judgment in their favor, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that there were no genuine issues of material fact, the officers' entry and arrest were supported by probable cause, the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and without underlying constitutional violations the Monell and state claims also failed.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involved claims by Michael Reis and Lawrence Katz, individually and as assignees of Weaver Nut Company, against the law firm Barley Snyder for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, tortious interference with contractual relations, and breach of contract arising from legal services provided to the company during a shareholder dispute. After a 35-day non-jury trial, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the defendant law firm on all six claims. The court reasoned that the firm owed fiduciary duties to the company but did not breach them or engage in conflicts, lacked knowledge of or assistance in any breach by the company's president, exercised appropriate skill without causing damages, had legal justification for its actions as the company's agent, and did not breach its service contract.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves anti-abortion protesters who sued a women's health center, its director, a city, and its police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that clinic escorts used tarps, human shields, and vocal noise to block protesters' access to patients and drown out their messages, violating plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional rights to free speech and religion, as well as equal protection, and creating a public nuisance by obstructing public streets. The court granted the motion to dismiss Count II, which sought relief under § 1983 for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, because that statute remedies only federal constitutional violations. It also dismissed the state constitutional claims in Count III on the same ground and dismissed the federal equal protection claims as duplicative of the First Amendment claim in Count I. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged infringement of their federal First Amendment rights to speech and religion, and denied dismissal of Count IV, concluding that Pennsylvania law recognizes a private claim for public nuisance based on obstruction of public ways or civil rights violations.

abortionfree speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved a student, Donald Miller III, challenging Penn Manor School District's policies restricting student expression, including a T-shirt he wore that the school viewed as promoting violence and law-breaking, as well as broader rules against expressions seeking to establish religious supremacy or causing distractions to the educational environment. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction in part, finding the religious supremacy prohibition and the distraction standard unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment, and enjoined their enforcement pending final judgment. It denied the motion in other respects, holding that the policy against promoting violence was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague and could constitutionally be applied to the student's T-shirt. The decision was based on review of the policies' text, evidence from a hearing, and precedents addressing student speech in public schools.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case is a class action brought by plaintiff Gary Anthony, a former employee at a Pennsylvania manufacturing plant, against several beryllium product manufacturers and distributors. Anthony sought court-supervised medical monitoring on behalf of thousands of current and former coworkers allegedly exposed to airborne beryllium, claiming they faced an increased risk of developing chronic beryllium disease. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion after noting the parties' stipulation that Anthony had tested negative for beryllium sensitization and was not currently sensitized. The court reasoned that, under applicable law and the undisputed facts, a plaintiff must be beryllium sensitized to pursue a medical monitoring claim for chronic beryllium disease, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to refiling if Anthony later becomes sensitized or is diagnosed with the disease.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved homeowners Deborah and Michael Madera appealing a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding against Ameriquest Mortgage Company. The Maders alleged that Ameriquest violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by failing to properly disclose and include an overcharge for title insurance in the finance charge on their 2005 mortgage loan, which they used to refinance a prior loan, and that this entitled them to rescind the loan and recover damages; they also raised claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Ameriquest, and the district court affirmed that ruling along with the denial of reconsideration. The court held that the Maders failed to introduce admissible evidence of any prior title insurance policy or overcharge, waived arguments by not raising them below, and could not rely on new documents outside the appellate record, while noting the impact of an existing state-court foreclosure judgment.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Graco Children's Products sued Chicco USA, alleging that Chicco's Cortina stroller models infringed claims 20, 21, and 26 of Graco's U.S. Patent No. 6,478,327 for a foldable children's stroller. The court conducted a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms, as required before determining infringement. Relying on intrinsic evidence such as the patent specification, claims, and prosecution history, the court interpreted terms according to their ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, while construing the claims to sustain validity where possible. Specific constructions included definitions for phrases like 'upper tray,' 'hinge lock fixedly mounted,' and 'actuator being mounted for movement between an actuated position and an un-actuated position.' The court issued these constructions in an accompanying order without addressing the merits of infringement or validity.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which Peerless Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Brooks Systems Corporation, in an underlying Oregon state court action brought by Ash Grove Cement Company over allegedly defective material-handling equipment that Brooks had designed and constructed. The U.S. District Court granted Peerless’s motion for summary judgment on the counts addressing the primary commercial general liability policy and the umbrella policy. The court concluded that the allegations in the Ash Grove complaint did not fall within the coverage grants of either policy, which required an “occurrence” defined as an accident, and therefore Peerless owed no defense or indemnity obligation. Because those counts resolved the coverage question, the court dismissed the remaining counts concerning policy exclusions, the known-loss doctrine, and late notice as moot.

business & regulatory

This case involved consolidated appeals from a bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 13 petitions filed by Ali Joobeen, one on his own behalf and one as guardian for his minor son Jian, which had stayed foreclosure proceedings on residential rental property held in trust for the son. The bankruptcy court dismissed both cases with prejudice after finding they were filed in bad faith, applying the factors from In re Lilley, citing the history of serial filings, disruptive conduct at hearings, and attempts to hinder creditors. The district court affirmed the bad faith determination and resulting dismissal in part but remanded in part for further proceedings on issues such as the scope of prospective relief from the automatic stay and certain motions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court by a plaintiff on behalf of current and former employees at the U.S. Gauge facility, alleging negligence by several manufacturers in the production and distribution of beryllium-containing products that exposed workers to hazardous levels of the substance. The plaintiff sought the creation of a court-supervised medical monitoring program for lifetime testing and screening. Defendant Cabot removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), asserting diversity jurisdiction, after which the plaintiff moved to remand, claiming the home-state controversy exception applied because most class members and the primary defendant were Pennsylvania citizens. The court denied the motion for remand, concluding that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requirements of the CAFA exception to decline jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a probationary police officer who sued a Pennsylvania borough under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his termination deprived him of a property interest in continued employment without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; he also raised related claims under Pennsylvania's Local Agency Law and Borough Code. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion, dismissing the entire complaint. It reasoned that the plaintiff never acquired a protected property interest because the borough took steps to end his employment before he completed his one-year probationary period, and state law would allow a brief extension for evaluation if needed. After dismissing the sole federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs Michael Reis, Sr. and Lawrence J. Katz suing the law firm Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen LLC for alleged misconduct in connection with Weaver Nut Company, Inc., asserting claims both in their individual capacities and as assignees of the company. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, abuse of process, tortious interference with contractual relations, conversion, and breach of contract. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), dismissing all individual-capacity claims and two counts entirely while allowing the assignee claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, plus the breach of contract claim, to proceed. The core reasoning rested on Pennsylvania law regarding standing for direct versus derivative claims, the elements and recognition of tort claims such as aiding and abetting, and the sufficiency of allegations under the applicable pleading standards.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between Dr. Gazi Abdulhay and his medical entities (including a women's cancer center and ambulatory surgery center) and defendants consisting of the landlord of a medical office building (Bethlehem Medical Arts entities and Dr. Fogarty) and the architectural firm (Roth Marz and Thompson) hired to design fit-out plans for leased space. Plaintiffs alleged federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3) based on racial discrimination against Dr. Abdulhay as an Arab-American, along with pendent state claims for breach of lease contracts, architectural malpractice, defamation, and tortious interference. On motions for summary judgment, the court granted the Bethlehem Defendants' motion in part by dismissing specific breach-of-lease averments from Counts Five and Six, all claims by Dr. Abdulhay from Count Six, and claims against certain Bethlehem defendants from Count Six, while denying the motion in all other respects; the court denied the Roth Marz Defendants' motion in full. The rulings were based on the undisputed facts in the record from depositions, affidavits, and exhibits, which showed that certain contract claims lacked support as to particular lease provisions or parties while other claims, including the civil rights and remaining contract/tort claims, presented triable issues.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory