In Davis v. Abington Memorial Hospital and five related cases, hospital employees sued their employers alleging violations of the FLSA, PMWA, WPCL, RICO, ERISA, and state common law for failing to pay wages for time worked during automatically deducted meal breaks, preliminary and postliminary work, and training sessions. After prior rulings that ERISA and LMRA preempted the state-law claims, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints reasserting those claims along with federal claims. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the RICO claims failed to plead a fraudulent scheme with particularity, that many claims were preempted or inadequately alleged, and that the complaints did not meet pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6).
This multidistrict litigation involves claims by patients who allegedly suffered congestive heart failure and related injuries after taking the diabetes drug Avandia, asserting that manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline failed to provide adequate warnings of the risks on the product labels. GSK moved for summary judgment on the adequacy of the 2001 and 2007 labels for plaintiffs from New York, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania who ingested the drug after the relevant dates. The court denied the motion, holding that evidence of omissions regarding risks for certain patient subpopulations, GSK's prior knowledge of those risks, and ambiguities or inconsistencies in the labels raised genuine factual disputes that a reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiffs' favor.
The case concerned co-defendants Juan Cordero and Richard Caraballo-Rodriguez, who were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c), contending that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that they knew the specific objective of the conspiracy. The court reviewed in detail the trial evidence, which included law enforcement surveillance and testimony, a co-defendant's statements, seized contraband and phone records, and expert testimony on Puerto Rican drug-trafficking operations. The opinion analyzed whether this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, could support the jury's finding on the knowledge element.
The case concerns a dispute between Medevac MidAtlantic, an out-of-network provider of emergency air transport services, and Keystone Mercy Health Plan, a Medicaid managed care organization operating under Pennsylvania's HealthChoices program. Medevac alleged that KMHP failed to adequately reimburse it for services provided to KMHP members, asserting claims including breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, while KMHP moved to dismiss two counts under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike references to billed charges and requests for attorneys' fees under Rule 12(f). The court examined the Medicaid Act's provisions on payments to non-plan emergency providers, Pennsylvania regulations governing MCO contracts, and the pleading standards to evaluate the viability of the claims and requested relief.
The case concerns claims by a condominium association against the developer for defects in common elements like driveways, retaining walls, and drainage systems, as well as the developer's alleged failure to pay unit assessments and properly calculate reserves, brought under breach of the declaration and warranties, unjust enrichment, and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The developer moved to dismiss counts II and III and for a more definite statement on count I. The court denied the motions in part and granted them in part after applying federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal along with Pennsylvania law on contract provisions, unconscionability, and standing to sue under the UTPCPL.
In this case, SigmaPharm, Inc. sued Mutual Pharmaceuticals Company, United Research Laboratories, and King Pharmaceuticals for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, related state antitrust and unfair competition laws, and breach of contract, claiming that Mutual and King conspired to restrict output of generic equivalents to King's brand-name drug Skelaxin in violation of development and employment agreements that entitled SigmaPharm to royalties. The court dismissed the federal antitrust claim for failure to state a claim, primarily because SigmaPharm did not adequately plead antitrust injury or standing as its alleged harms from lost royalties were too remote and indirect compared to harms to more direct market participants. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismissed the discovery-related motions as moot.