Mary A. McLaughlin

This case concerns a contract dispute between KDH entities and Curtis Technology Ltd. (CTL) over the development and ownership of a T-3 sonar system under a 2006 Teaming Agreement, which escalated into nineteen counterclaims by CTL and its CEO alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, trade secret violations, and related claims against multiple KDH-affiliated parties. The counterclaim defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Channel defendants and for failure to state a claim. The court denied the personal jurisdiction motion without prejudice and granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in part and denied it in part, applying standards including the statute of limitations, gist of the action doctrine, economic loss rule, and choice of law to evaluate each count. Core reasoning focused on whether the counterclaims adequately pled facts against proper parties, avoided duplicative tort claims arising from contracts, and met pleading requirements under federal and Pennsylvania law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Wulf v. Bank of America, the plaintiff alleged that after his FHA mortgage was purchased by Bank of America, the bank improperly required him to increase his flood insurance coverage beyond the amount specified in the mortgage documents and federal regulations, leading to claims for breach of contract, violation of TILA, violation of Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, fraud, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the UTPCPL and fraud claims under the economic loss doctrine and incorporating the good faith claim into the contract count, while denying dismissal of the breach of contract and TILA claims. The core reasoning was that the mortgage language regarding flood insurance requirements was ambiguous and could plausibly support the plaintiff's interpretation limiting coverage to the loan balance, and that TILA disclosures might apply to the insurance demand, though the court expressed skepticism about the TILA claim's ultimate viability.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs who paid over $14 million in ERISA withdrawal liability for a bankrupt shipping company, NPR, and sought to recover that amount from NPR's corporate affiliates and owners under theories of common control, veil piercing, and alter ego liability. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and by defendants Orchard Hill and Holt Sr. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in full. It granted the defendants' motion in part by entering judgment against the plaintiffs on their claims to pierce NPR's veil to reach Holt Sr. and to hold Orchard Hill liable as an alter ego of NPR, while denying the motion as to the remaining claims involving common control and veil piercing of Orchard Hill.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves indirect purchasers of the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL suing its manufacturers Biovail and distributors GSK for allegedly conspiring to block generic versions from the U.S. market through sham litigation, seeking treble damages under federal antitrust law. After the Supreme Court's Shady Grove decision on state class action limits in federal court, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add claims under New York's Donnelly Act and the Illinois Antitrust Act. The court granted leave to add the New York claims, finding no unfair prejudice since class certification opposition had not yet been filed, but denied the Illinois claims due to state law restrictions on indirect purchaser suits and class actions that survived Shady Grove analysis. The decision applied a two-step framework examining whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 conflicts with the state statutes and whether those statutes are substantive under the Rules Enabling Act.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a construction dispute arising from the building of Skirkanich Hall at the University of Pennsylvania, in which subcontractor Quinn sued architect TWBTA for incomplete plans and general contractor Skanska for unpaid contract balances, change orders, and delay damages, while Skanska cross-claimed against Quinn for project delays and against surety Harleysville on performance bonds. The court ruled on three summary judgment motions, denying Harleysville's motion on the bonds, denying Quinn's partial motion on post-October 2005 delay claims, and granting Skanska's partial motion on many of Quinn's delay, disruption, and change-order claims. The core reasoning examined the subcontract provisions granting Skanska sole control over scheduling and barring delay damages, reviewed evidence of releases and waivers in change orders, and determined that some claims were contractually precluded or lacked supporting evidence while others presented triable factual issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a Temple University student, Kevin Furey, who was expelled following an altercation with an off-duty police officer near campus. Furey sued the university and various employees, claiming violations including procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing process, and sought to vacate his expulsion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims except the procedural due process claim against Temple and some individual defendants, finding disputed material facts on that issue. Summary judgment was also granted for defendants who had no involvement in the expulsion process. The core reasoning was that while the Code of Conduct's procedures generally satisfied due process, factual disputes existed regarding how the process was applied in this case.

civil rightsprocedure

In Wolk v. Olson, a prominent aviation attorney sued the operators of Overlawyered.com for defamation, false light, and related claims based on an article published on the site in April 2007 that questioned aspects of the plaintiff's conduct in a prior case. The plaintiff did not discover the article until April 2009 and filed suit the following month. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the one-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations for defamation barred the claims because the discovery rule does not toll the limitations period in mass-media defamation cases. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania precedent limits the discovery rule to latent injuries of unknown etiology and does not extend it to publications in widely accessible media such as websites, consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves three tenants-in-common of a Philadelphia commercial property who sued the longtime manager and nominee George Kaufman and related defendants for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in handling rents, management fees, mortgages, loans, and other financial matters since the 1970s and 1980s; they also sought an accounting with a receiver, a declaratory judgment voiding deeds and a mortgage, and partition of the property. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. The fraud, breach-of-duty, declaratory-judgment, and partition claims were barred by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for fraud, as the plaintiffs had received sufficient notice of the facts through decades-old correspondence. The accounting claim was barred either by the six-year statute of limitations or by laches.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case was a declaratory judgment action between two insurers, Selective Way and Travelers, over coverage obligations following a 2005 Pennsylvania auto accident that led to a state-court lawsuit settled by Selective Way for $14.25 million. Selective Way sought defense and indemnity from Travelers for driver Keith Stalker and his employer Stafursky Paving, arguing they qualified as insureds under Travelers' policy issued to States Aggregate because Stalker was a borrowed servant and the truck a hired auto. The court granted summary judgment to Travelers, holding that Stalker and Stafursky Paving were not insureds under the policy. The reasoning centered on Pennsylvania law interpretations of policy terms, finding that States Aggregate lacked the requisite control over Stalker and the truck to establish borrowed-servant or hired-auto status, as Stafursky Paving retained direction over the driver, vehicle assignment, and routes.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is an FLSA putative collective action in which the plaintiff alleged that Delta-T Group, Inc., a healthcare staffing company, misclassified him and other workers as independent contractors rather than employees. After the court previously denied conditional collective certification without prejudice due to variances among workers, the defendant moved to dismiss the over-ninety opt-in plaintiffs and later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction following an offer of judgment; the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint. The court denied both defense motions and granted leave to amend, reasoning that the opt-ins could remain because the certification denial was without prejudice and judicial economy favored their presence pending potential subclass proposals, the offer of judgment did not moot the collective claims or divest jurisdiction, and the amendment complied with Rules 15 and 20.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the parents of a high school student of Brazilian ancestry against a Catholic school, its theology teacher, and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, claiming that the teacher created a hostile environment through repeated jokes targeting the student's long hair, Brazilian background, and nationality, leading to declining grades and the student's eventual transfer. The plaintiffs originally asserted claims under Title VI, Title IX, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, later seeking to amend to drop the first two statutes and add a § 1983 claim while voluntarily withdrawing equitable relief requests. The court denied the motion to amend, the motion for summary judgment, and the motion to stay, holding that amendment would be futile because the defendants were not state actors and § 1981 does not reach national origin discrimination, while memorializing the withdrawal of the Title VI and Title IX claims and leaving only the § 1981 claims pending.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a motion by defendants in a multidistrict class action litigation over the marketing and sale of annuities to enforce a 2009 final settlement order and judgment against class member Joseph L. Zaher. The defendants sought to enjoin Zaher from continuing a separate 2007 civil action he filed in Massachusetts state court alleging similar claims of misrepresentations in annuity sales. The court granted the motion and permanently barred Zaher from litigating the Massachusetts case. The core reasoning was that Zaher and his attorney received adequate notice of the class settlement and the opt-out deadline but did not exclude themselves, making Zaher bound by the broad release of claims in the approved settlement stipulation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a multidistrict class action in which annuities holders sued insurance companies under RICO and state laws, resulting in a court-approved settlement valued between $185 million and $549 million. The final order included appeal procedures requiring any objector to request a stay and post an appropriate bond before appealing. Class member Martha Michael appealed the approval without requesting a stay or posting a bond. Plaintiffs moved to enforce the order by requiring her to post a supersedeas bond exceeding $569 million (or alternatively a $12.75 million cost bond) and for related relief including sanctions for contempt and disclosures by her counsel. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after expedited briefing and a conference, ordering a $25,000 cost bond under Rule 7 but declining to impose a supersedeas bond or find contempt.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves disputes between Raymond Perelman and his son Jeffrey over financial transactions from the late 1980s and early 1990s, including the sale of companies and the creation of a trust for Jeffrey's daughter. In federal court, Jeffrey and others seek a declaratory judgment that Raymond has no valid claims regarding the trust or acquisitions, along with a defamation claim against Raymond and Ronald Perelman. A parallel action in state court was filed by Raymond alleging fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the federal action, holding that it lacks discretion to dismiss the defamation claims and that discretionary factors favor retaining the declaratory judgment claims to avoid piecemeal litigation.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Temi Bamgbose suing Delta-T Group, Inc., alleging that the company misclassified healthcare workers as independent contractors rather than employees to avoid paying overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA to allow other similarly situated workers to join the suit. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the healthcare workers were not similarly situated due to variations in their roles, educational backgrounds, work settings across multiple states and affiliates, and the individualized nature of their relationships with Delta-T and its clients.

labor & employment

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by pretrial detainees, including representatives Nakisha Boone and George Byrd, challenging the City of Philadelphia's policy of strip-searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes upon admission to the Philadelphia Prison System as unconstitutional. The court certified a class divided into two subclasses based on the timing of the searches and approved a settlement providing monetary payments of $1,000 to $3,000 per claimant, along with changes to the City's search procedures. The court reasoned that class certification requirements were met due to common questions of law and fact, numerosity, and adequate representation, and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate after weighing the strength of the claims, litigation risks, and benefits to the class. The court also awarded class counsel attorneys' fees at 30% of the settlement fund plus expenses and incentive awards to the representatives.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The United States sued Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., a private operator of preschools and schools, alleging that the company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by maintaining a policy of excluding or disenrolling children with disabilities and by discriminating against twelve specific children and their families. The defendant moved to dismiss all claims except those involving individualized discrimination against the named children, including challenges to allegations of a pattern or practice, failure to provide reasonable modifications, and associational discrimination. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the complaint met pleading requirements under Twombly and Iqbal for some claims but not others, while rejecting arguments that would require the plaintiff to elect a single legal theory at the pleading stage.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is a consolidated shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of NutriSystem, Inc., a publicly traded weight-management company, against several of its officers and directors. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5) as well as Delaware claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment, arising from allegedly false or misleading statements about the impact of a competing product on the company's sales and earnings. The plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on the board and instead asserted that demand would be futile. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that the board could impartially consider a demand, and therefore did not reach the alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Jeffrey Datto's dismissal from Thomas Jefferson University's M.D./Ph.D. program and his subsequent claims of disability discrimination and retaliation for complaints about patient care, brought under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, PHRA, PFEOA, and state wrongful termination law across multiple related suits with a complex procedural history. The court granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to the extent they challenged the dismissal decision itself, the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims against individual defendants, all PHRA and PFEOA claims, and the wrongful termination claim. It allowed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed insofar as they concerned the alleged refusal to readmit Datto to the program. The core reasoning centered on timeliness under statutes of limitations, the distinction between discrete acts and continuing violations, the scope of individual liability under the relevant statutes, and procedural requirements for filing state discrimination claims.

civil rightsprocedure

In this consolidated class action, purchasers of NutriSystem securities alleged that the company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the company's financial prospects in light of competition from a new over-the-counter weight loss drug. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, among other reasons. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts raising a strong inference of scienter, lacked standing for certain claims, and failed to allege most false statements with the required particularity.

business & regulatoryprocedure