Yvette Kane

Parents of children in the Lebanon School District sued the district after it issued over 1,200 truancy citations per year and collected fines exceeding the $300 statutory maximum on hundreds of occasions, retaining more than $107,000 in excess payments without offering refunds or adjustment procedures for amounts already paid. The court denied the district's motion to dismiss, holding that the district is a proper defendant and that the complaint states a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The core reasoning was that money constitutes a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the absence of any meaningful process for recovering the overpaid fines raises a plausible due-process violation.

civil rightsprocedure

In Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, plaintiff Brian Kelly was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over by police officer David Rogers for speeding and a bumper height violation; Kelly recorded the stop on a small handheld camera resting on his lap without informing the officer. The officer seized the camera, consulted an assistant district attorney, and arrested Kelly under the Pennsylvania Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After the Third Circuit vacated in part the district court's initial grant of summary judgment and remanded for further findings on the Fourth Amendment claims, the district court reconsidered the officer's motion. The court denied summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the officer had probable cause and was entitled to qualified immunity, including disputes over whether the camera was in plain view and the clarity of Pennsylvania law on recording police during traffic stops.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speech

This case involves a dispute between Northwest Savings Bank and its landlords over a commercial lease for property at 2200 South Atherton Street in State College, Pennsylvania. The bank sought a declaratory judgment that it had not defaulted under the lease by failing to occupy the premises or by making alterations without prior written consent. The court granted the bank's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that no default occurred. The core reasoning was that the lease permitted the delayed bank use, non-occupancy did not meet the definition of abandonment given ongoing renovation plans, the landlords had accepted rent payments while aware of the situation, and any alleged breaches lacked the required notice and cure period under the lease terms.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a former employee of the Lackawanna County Controller’s Office who sued the newly elected controller under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was terminated hours after the defendant took office in retaliation for his political affiliation or refusal to participate in political activity, in violation of his First Amendment rights, and without due process. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, granting summary judgment to the defendant on the failure-to-train claim but denying it as to the political termination, procedural due process, and punitive damages claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of a genuine factual dispute on whether his political stance was a substantial motivating factor in the termination, that available post-termination union procedures did not necessarily satisfy due process requirements for a public employee with a property interest in the job, and that the question of punitive damages should be left to the jury given the surviving claims.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

This case involves an inmate at SCI Smithfield suing several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a collapsing shower ceiling caused him head and back injuries and that the officials' awareness of the ceiling's deterioration amounted to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It granted summary judgment to defendants Palakovich, Smeal, and Reihart but denied summary judgment to the remaining defendants, finding a genuine issue of material fact on whether those defendants had subjective knowledge of the ceiling's condition based on the plaintiff's allegation that he personally observed them inspecting the sagging ceiling.

civil rights

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Joyce Robinson, a Black female locomotive engineer, alleged that her railroad employer subjected her to unequal discipline, denied her access to women's restrooms, failed to prevent racial vandalism and threats at work, and terminated her after a train derailment, all in violation of Title VII and state law. The court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim for ongoing employment discrimination and the race-based hostile work environment claim, finding genuine issues of material fact that required a trial. It stayed proceedings on the Title VII termination claim pending further briefing on whether Robinson had exhausted administrative remedies before the EEOC and PHRC. The court granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, including sex-based hostile environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, primarily because those claims were time-barred or unsupported by sufficient evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, First United Bank & Trust sued Sterling Financial Corporation, its subsidiary Equipment Finance, LLC, and PNC Financial Services Group after purchasing a portfolio of equipment loans, alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations about the loans' quality, delinquency rates, and collateral to induce the purchase, and later concealed fraud and irregularities in loan administration. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, aiding and abetting, and concerted tortious conduct. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part, dismissing several tort claims under the gist of the action doctrine as duplicative of the contract claim and finding insufficient allegations for fiduciary duty claims, while allowing the breach of contract claim and certain others to proceed and reserving ruling on successor liability issues against PNC. The court directed the plaintiff to either amend the complaint or confirm it would stand on the existing filing.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves female professors at Penn State University's College of Medicine who sued the university alleging gender-based salary disparities in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment solely on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that most claims were time-barred because the plaintiffs had knowledge of potential disparities from faculty senate studies and women's faculty group discussions as early as 1997-2001, and the continuing violation doctrine did not extend the limitations period to older pay decisions. However, claims by one plaintiff who joined the group later and some more recent pay-related allegations were not fully barred. The decision turned on when the plaintiffs reasonably should have discovered the alleged discrimination and the applicable 300-day filing window under Title VII and related statutes.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a putative class action brought by three Pennsylvania death row inmates challenging the state's lethal injection protocol as exposing them to an unconstitutional risk of severe pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of standing, untimeliness, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees foreclosed such claims. The court denied the motion, holding that standing was established by prior rulings for two plaintiffs and that the third plaintiff had a sufficient interest due to an active death warrant, that the complaint was timely filed, and that Baze does not absolutely preclude challenges to a state's specific protocol at the pleading stage. Discovery was ordered to proceed on the constitutional claims.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Miller v. United States, plaintiff Marjory Miller sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after falling into an uncovered drainage ditch at Gettysburg National Military Park and sustaining injuries, claiming negligence for the lack of warning signs or a crossover path. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the National Park Service's decisions on safety measures fell within the FTCA's discretionary function exception. The court reasoned that the agency's policies grant park officials discretion to balance visitor safety against historic preservation and site authenticity, and such choices are presumed to involve policy considerations.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves a products liability claim where plaintiffs seek damages for injuries and property loss from a house fire allegedly caused by a defective Sylvania TV/VCR manufactured by the defendants. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' fire causation experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. The court denied the motion, finding that the experts employed reliable methodologies, including burn pattern analysis and process of elimination per NFPA 921 guidelines, after establishing the fire's origin within the device. The reasoning emphasized that the experts applied the same level of rigor as in their professional practice, satisfying the requirements of sufficient facts, reliable principles, and reliable application to the case facts.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a former Deputy Warden at Dauphin County Prison who sued county officials after his position was eliminated during financial cutbacks, alleging that the termination was retaliation for his protected speech about prison operations and prior lawsuits against the warden and county, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, along with conspiracy and state-law wrongful discharge claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The reasoning centered on the absence of evidence showing that the job elimination was pretextual or motivated by retaliation, the lack of a protected property interest for due process, the inapplicability of equal protection claims to public employment decisions, and insufficient support for conspiracy or wrongful discharge under Pennsylvania law.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

In Sites v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant mortgage company failed to properly credit an $814.36 loan payment, erroneously reported the loan as delinquent to credit bureaus, and interfered with their efforts to refinance with another lender, seeking over $537,000 in damages. The amended complaint asserted claims for defamation, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, fraud, and a violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. On the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted only the state consumer protection claim while the common-law tort claims could proceed. The decision turned on the scope of FCRA preemption provisions, which bar certain state statutory claims arising from credit reporting but do not displace traditional tort actions for false reporting and related conduct.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

In United States v. Crist, the defendant moved to suppress video files of child pornography recovered from his computer via a warrantless forensic examination, as well as statements made during a police interview at his home. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The case centered on whether police procedures—including creating an MD5 hash value of the entire hard drive and using EnCase software to image and search all data—exceeded the scope of a prior private search by an individual who had taken the computer and viewed only some files. The court reasoned that the government's forensic analysis constituted a new and broader search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence obtained beyond what the private searcher had already discovered, while addressing separate claims regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's statements.

criminal lawprocedure

In this products liability action, plaintiffs Jeffrey and Suzanne Chubb sued On-Time Wildlife Feeders after a fire damaged their home, alleging that a malfunction in On-Time's Bumper Buddy product attached to their Yamaha ATV caused the fire. On-Time filed a third-party complaint against Yamaha, the ATV's manufacturer, claiming instead that a design defect in the ATV allowed gasoline to leak and ignite. After the court excluded On-Time's expert witness under Daubert standards for lack of reliability and fit, On-Time relied on non-expert testimony and statements that the fuel tank was full, but the court found this evidence insufficient to establish a defect or causation without specialized knowledge. Applying Pennsylvania products liability law, which requires proof of a defect existing at the time of manufacture and proximate causation, the court granted summary judgment to Yamaha because the remaining evidence was merely speculative and could not support a jury finding.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action in which Vidir Machine, Inc. and Raymond Dueck allege that United Fixtures Co. infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,092,450, which covers a rotary cutter device for cutting rolled flooring materials such as carpet and vinyl from below a slotted support table. The court held a Markman hearing to resolve disputes over the construction of multiple claim terms, including "support member," "slot," "cutter block," "rotary cutter," "elongate flexible drive member," and related drive-mechanism elements appearing in independent claims 1, 9, 11, and 13. Applying the framework from Phillips v. AWH Corp. and Innova/Pure Water, the court focused on the ordinary meaning of the claim language to a person of skill in the art, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, while treating extrinsic evidence skeptically and noting amendments and disclaimers made during patent prosecution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns parents of disabled students in the Lancaster and Reading School Districts suing the Pennsylvania Department of Education and its Secretary over the state's special education funding statute, 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5. Plaintiffs alleged that the funding formula, which allocates resources based on average daily membership rather than actual student needs or costs, along with hold-harmless provisions and incentives for segregated placements, violates the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Title II of the ADA, and the Due Process Clause by failing to ensure a free appropriate public education. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that the plaintiffs had standing because their injuries were traceable to the state funding method, that administrative exhaustion under the IDEA would be futile for these systemic claims, and that the complaint sufficiently stated claims under the federal statutes without sovereign immunity barriers.

civil rights

In Giles v. Volvo Trucks North America, an employee sued his employer and two colleagues, along with an IRS agent, claiming they unlawfully changed his federal tax withholding status after he submitted a W-4 form asserting exemption from taxes and Social Security, leading to continued deductions from his wages; he alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment due process clause and civil RICO statutes for what he described as running a racket to collect a nonexistent debt. The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the employer defendants. The decision rested on findings that the employers had complied with IRS lock-in instructions and legal requirements for forwarding the W-4, that no facts supported a RICO claim involving fraud or proximate causation, and that the Fifth Amendment claim failed because the defendants were private parties rather than government actors.

taxeslabor & employmentcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a former employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry who alleged that the state agency violated her rights under the self-care provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act by criticizing her for taking sick leave due to medical conditions, interfering with her request for a modified schedule, retaliating against her, and terminating her employment. The plaintiff sued in federal court seeking relief under the FMLA. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims were barred by state sovereign immunity. The core reasoning was that although Congress clearly expressed an intent to abrogate state immunity in the FMLA, it lacked valid authority to do so for the self-care leave provisions under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment because those provisions were not a congruent and proportional response to unconstitutional state conduct.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to the National Credit Union Administration's handling of an application by Members 1st Federal Credit Union to convert to a community credit union charter serving several counties in central Pennsylvania. The court addressed the applicable standard of review for the agency's decision and the proper scope of discovery in the proceeding. It held that the NCUA's action must be reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard of APA § 706(2)(A) for substantive merits and § 706(2)(D) for procedural compliance. The court further determined that review is limited to the administrative record before the agency at the time of its decision, without additional discovery or post-hoc explanations. This conclusion follows from established APA precedents requiring evaluation based on the agency's contemporaneous rationale and record.

business & regulatoryprocedure