In Brewer v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., plaintiffs moved to remand eight pharmaceutical liability cases that the defendant, GlaxoSmithKline LLC, had removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The court granted the motions, holding that the LLC is a citizen of Pennsylvania for jurisdictional purposes and that removal is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Applying the Supreme Court’s “nerve center” test from Hertz Corp. v. Friend, the court determined that operational decision-making for the LLC occurs in Philadelphia, where its senior officers and board direct its business activities, even though its sole member is a Delaware holding company. Because the holding company delegates control to the operating LLC, the LLC’s own nerve center governs citizenship, resulting in the defendant being a citizen of the forum state.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company sued for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify New Hope Healthcare under a business liability policy in a Pennsylvania state court negligence action brought by the estate of a deceased resident of a personal care home managed by New Hope. The underlying complaint alleged that New Hope's negligence in failing to supervise the resident, provide access to rooms, and maintain security contributed to his injuries and death. New Hope argued the claims fell within coverage and that any inaccuracies in its insurance application were not material misrepresentations. The court denied Hartford's motion for summary judgment, holding that the complaint asserted ordinary negligence rather than excluded professional negligence and that there was insufficient evidence to void the policy for knowing material falsehoods in the application.
The case involved defendant John Herron, who was convicted after a jury trial of attempting to manufacture 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) based on a government sting operation using fake precursor chemicals. Herron moved for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, contending there was insufficient evidence that he intended to produce that quantity because recorded conversations referred to the chemical as Sudafed pills containing only about three percent ephedrine rather than pure ephedrine. The court granted the motion in part, striking the quantity finding and entering judgment on the lesser included offense of attempt to manufacture an unspecified amount under § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), while denying outright acquittal. The core reasoning was that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Herron believed he possessed enough pure ephedrine to yield 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.
In this ERISA case, Duane Morgan challenged Prudential's termination of his long-term disability benefits after 24 months, arguing that his disability stemmed from fibromyalgia rather than anxiety and depression, which the plan defined as a mental illness subject to a benefit cap. The court applied a deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review to the administrative record and determined that Prudential's conclusion regarding the cause of the disability was not supported by substantial evidence. As a result, the court entered judgment for Morgan on the benefits claim while also granting Prudential's counterclaim for reimbursement of overpaid short- and long-term benefits.
The case involved Carmen Dixon-Rollins suing Trans Union for negligently and willfully violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to adequately reinvestigate disputes about an erroneous collection account on her credit report stemming from a settled landlord-tenant debt. After a jury awarded her $30,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, the court denied Trans Union's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the liability findings but reduced the punitive damages to $270,000. The court reasoned that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions because Trans Union repeatedly relied solely on the debt collector's verifications without independent corroboration or forwarding consumer information, demonstrating both negligence and willfulness, while the original punitive amount was disproportionate to the harm.