Cynthia M. Rufe

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).

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

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.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case arose after the plaintiff filed a state court action asserting only state law claims against his employer and others, then moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding new defendants and federal claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Defendants removed the matter to federal court on the basis of the proposed federal claims before the state court had ruled on the motion for leave to amend. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court, dismissing the pending motion to dismiss as moot. The court reasoned that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a case does not become removable until an amended pleading that would confer federal jurisdiction actually becomes operative, which requires the state court to grant leave to amend; the First Amended Complaint contained only state claims and thus provided no basis for removal.

procedurefederal power

The case involves a 19-year-old student with Down syndrome and related disabilities who attended Mastery Charter School under an outdated IEP and was later disenrolled after conflicts arose between the school and her parent regarding attendance, support staff, and parental access. The parent appealed a due process hearing officer's ruling and sought a mandatory stay-put injunction under the IDEA to require R.B.'s return to Mastery during ongoing administrative and judicial proceedings. The court analyzed whether Mastery violated the IDEA's stay-put provision (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)) by unilaterally changing the student's placement while proceedings were pending, concluding that the last functioning educational placement was at Mastery and that disenrollment constituted an improper exclusion without required procedural safeguards such as notice and opportunity to contest the change.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs James MacKay and Celebrity Foods, Inc. suing Spine Pain Management, Inc. (formerly Versa Card) and its CEO William Donovan for breach of contract and fraud, claiming the defendants failed to remove restrictive legends from retained shares as required by a 2008 Settlement Agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, determining that specific personal jurisdiction exists over the defendants due to their contacts with Pennsylvania through the contract negotiations and execution, and that venue is proper, while addressing the sufficiency of the fraud pleadings under Delaware law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Jeanes Hospital's claim for Medicare reimbursement under the Medicare Act for a loss on the sale of assets resulting from its 1996 merger with Temple University Health System, after the hospital filed a terminating cost report claiming over $16 million in depreciation and loss payments. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Administrator, denied the claim on the grounds that the merger was not a bona fide sale due to the absence of arm's length negotiations and reasonable consideration, as the hospital board focused on mission and management continuity rather than maximizing sale price, and asset values transferred exceeded the consideration received. Following a prior remand by the district court for further analysis, the court reviewed the Administrator's second decision on cross-motions for summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act, examining whether it was supported by substantial evidence in the record regarding the transaction's financial details and board motivations.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a railroad employee's claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act that his employer, SMS Rail Lines, was negligent in failing to adequately supervise or enforce safety procedures, leading to an injury when a spike flew up and severed tendons in his wrist while he was manually setting spikes without wearing provided gloves. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the evidence showed no genuine issue of material fact as to negligence or causation and that the plaintiff bore sole responsibility for not following safety rules. The court outlined the FELA requirement that a plaintiff show the railroad’s negligence proximately contributed to the injury, as well as the summary judgment standard requiring enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party, and considered whether the absence of on-site supervision and other factors could support liability.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a pretrial detainee at Chester County Prison who filed a pro se complaint alleging that correction officers Austin and Weaver violated his constitutional rights through excessive force during a November 7, 2009 incident, denial of medical care for resulting injuries, and interference with grievances. Plaintiff James Brooks sought monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claimed Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violations. The court evaluated the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, accepting factual allegations as true, liberally construing the pro se pleading, and applying the plausibility standard from Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a former Director of Admissions at Lincoln Technical Institute, a Caucasian male, who sued the institute and its parent company for retaliation under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act after his termination. The plaintiff had been accused by a subordinate of making racially derogatory remarks and creating a hostile work environment; he participated in the employer's investigation of those complaints but later dropped his own claims of race and gender discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining retaliation claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff's defensive participation in the investigation did not qualify as protected activity under the statutes, and that the termination was prompted by newly discovered evidence of his misconduct rather than any retaliatory motive.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., Purolite sued Thermax and several individuals, including four former Purolite employees who joined Thermax in 2005, alleging a scheme to misappropriate confidential and trade secret information related to the development, production, and sale of ion exchange resins. The amended complaint asserted federal claims under RICO and the CFAA, plus state-law claims including misappropriation under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, unfair competition, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and duty of loyalty, and others, along with requests for injunctive relief. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants on nearly all claims and by the plaintiffs on certain affirmative defenses to equitable claims. It dismissed the withdrawn claims for conversion and inevitable disclosure, while analyzing the remaining claims under standards requiring evidence of misappropriation, malice, and other elements drawn from Pennsylvania precedent.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

The case involved the prosecution of Ali Amirnazmi on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by engaging in transactions with Iran, acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government, making false statements, and bank fraud. Following a jury trial, Amirnazmi was convicted on ten counts. He then moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that the court erred by admitting certain telephone recordings, evidence of pre-2003 conduct, a willful blindness jury instruction, and a government exhibit. The court denied the motion, holding that no errors occurred because the subpoenas for recordings were properly issued for trial, the conspiracy evidence was within the statute of limitations as part of a continuing offense, the jury instruction was appropriate, and the exhibit was relevant and admissible.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case was a putative class action lawsuit brought by plaintiff Richard Rosenau against Unifund Corporation and Unifund CCR Partners under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that defendants sent deceptive debt collection letters that falsely appeared to come from a Legal Department with attorney involvement. After the Third Circuit reversed an earlier dismissal and remanded the case, the district court certified a class of Pennsylvania residents who received such letters, and the parties reached a settlement. The court approved the settlement, which provided for a $100,000 class-wide payment fund to be distributed on a claims-made basis with cy pres donations for any remainder, plus separate payments for class counsel fees and costs and a $4,000 award to the class representative. The approval was based on findings that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under the relevant factors, that notice to the class was proper with no objections, and that the requested fees and award were reasonable given the work performed and results achieved.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This multidistrict litigation consolidates numerous federal cases alleging that GSK's diabetes drugs Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl cause heart attacks and other injuries due to inadequate warnings, with plaintiffs asserting state-law claims. The seventeen individual actions at issue were filed in state court, removed to federal court on diversity and sometimes federal question grounds, and transferred to the MDL; each featured a pending motion to remand. The court evaluated whether complete diversity existed by determining if certain defendants, such as drug distributors, had been fraudulently joined. It granted fifteen remand motions and denied two, concluding that in most cases the joinder was proper and diversity jurisdiction was lacking while in two cases it was not.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case is an ERISA action in which a former executive sued his nonprofit employer for severance pay and deferred compensation allegedly due under company policies after his 2005 termination. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to two years' salary under the 1995 Key Executive Severance Policy because his termination resulted from a reduction in force, while the defendant argued that a July 2005 policy applied, that he was fired for unsatisfactory performance, and that he therefore was ineligible for benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, holding that the later policy controlled and that the plan administrator's denial of benefits was not arbitrary or capricious under ERISA review standards.

labor & employment

In Tate v. West Norriton Township, plaintiff Donte Tate sued a township and police officer after being arrested for disorderly conduct while helping an injured person at a car accident scene, alleging false arrest and excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Monell claim against the township, and related state law claims. The court addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying standards for probable cause in light of free speech protections for profanity, evaluating whether handcuffing constituted excessive force given complaints of tightness and resulting injury, and assessing municipal liability under Monell.

civil rightscriminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action in which Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited sought a ruling from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that they do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,096,760, assigned to Johnson Matthey, Inc. and related entities, by distributing the Daytrana transdermal methylphenidate patch for ADHD treatment. Johnson Matthey had earlier filed a patent infringement suit against Noven Pharmaceuticals (Daytrana's manufacturer) in the Eastern District of Texas and later added Shire as a defendant. The court granted Johnson Matthey's motion to dismiss, applying the first-to-file rule to defer to the Texas action because it was filed first, involved identical factual and legal issues regarding infringement of the same patent, and no compelling fairness or efficiency considerations justified an exception despite Shire's arguments about party identity, bad faith, and convenience of witnesses.

procedurebusiness & regulatory