The case involves Plaintiff Victor Jerome Walthour, Sr., who was arrested by Defendant George Miller, a park police officer, in a Delaware County courthouse on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest following his behavior during a juvenile dependency hearing. Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After Plaintiff entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in state court, Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact, that the Heck doctrine barred the claims, and that probable cause supported the arrest with no excessive force shown.
In Russo v. City of Philadelphia, plaintiff Joseph Russo sued the City of Philadelphia and officials after his 2009 removal from an appointed position on the Board of Revision of Taxes without a hearing, alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the claims were barred by res judicata because the same due process issues had already been litigated and rejected in prior state court actions that were affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Separately, the court found that Russo had no property interest in his at-will position on the Board, so he was not entitled to pre-termination due process protections.
In this case, Devon IT and affiliated companies sued IBM and four of its executives, alleging that misrepresentations about the market potential and development of Blade and iDataPlex server products induced them to invest millions under two agreements. The complaint asserted nine counts, including RICO violations for racketeering, conspiracy, breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related tort claims. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court applied New York law to contract issues and Pennsylvania law to tort claims, and granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against one executive because the facts did not establish a fiduciary relationship, while other claims were allowed to proceed after finding the allegations sufficient under the relevant legal standards.
This case involves a lawsuit by Geraldine Wray against Police Chief Michael Painter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Painter violated her Fourth Amendment rights by illegally arresting her and seizing her dog without warrants during a dispute over the dog's ownership. Painter had responded to a complaint from the dog's registered owner, entered Wray's home by claiming to have warrants, seized the dog, and arrested Wray. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Wray's property interest in the dog, whether consent to enter the home was valid given the misrepresentation about warrants, and whether Painter was entitled to qualified immunity.
This case arose from a jury trial in which Mineral Fiber Services, Inc. (MFS) sued several Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection officials and a governor's office attorney, alleging that their actions on Title V permitting, enforcement orders, and related documents for MFS's mineral wool facility constituted First Amendment retaliation for the company's public comments, as well as violations of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and state-law intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. After the jury returned a verdict for MFS on nearly all claims, the court granted the defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on every federal and state claim. The court's reasoning rested on findings that MFS had not shown protected activity linked to adverse actions with sufficient causation, lacked cognizable property or liberty interests, failed to establish similarly situated comparators or conscience-shocking conduct, and that the officials were protected by qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.
This case is a proposed class action brought by plaintiff Aaron Martin against Ford Motor Company concerning an alleged design defect in the rear axle of 1999-2003 Windstar minivans that causes rusting from the inside out and eventual cracking. Plaintiff claims Ford knew of the defect, failed to disclose it, breached express and implied warranties, and violated state consumer protection statutes. Ford moved to strike the class allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion to strike class allegations and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing certain warranty and consumer protection claims to proceed while dismissing others, including some fraud claims barred by the economic loss doctrine and statute of limitations issues.