Joel Harvey Slomsky

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.

civil rightscriminal lawfree speechprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedureproperty

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.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Meyer-Chatfield Corporation's claims against CBIZ, Benmark, and Haines for breach of nonsolicitation agreements, interference with contracts, and civil conspiracy, arising from the defendants allegedly soliciting the plaintiff's agents, employees, and strategic partners after a former vice president joined the competitor and acquisition talks failed. The court addressed defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the meaning of solicitation, the validity and application of a liquidated damages clause in the agreements, and the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert damages calculation under Pennsylvania law. The opinion analyzes potential overlaps between liquidated and actual damages, the scope of nonsolicitation terms regarding strategic partners, and the enforceability of liquidated damages without proof of actual harm, while reserving certain definitional issues for trial.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involves a trademark dispute between Alliance Bank and New Century Bank over the use of similar service marks in the banking industry. Alliance Bank, which owns the registered mark "CUSTOMER FIRST," sought a preliminary injunction against New Century Bank's use of "CUSTOMERS 1st BANK." The court granted the injunction, finding that Alliance was likely to succeed on its Lanham Act claims because it owns a valid mark and there is a likelihood of consumer confusion based on factors such as mark similarity, strength, and market overlap. The decision also considered irreparable harm to Alliance and the public interest in preventing confusion.

business & regulatory

The case arose from child dependency proceedings in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which Defendant Delaware County Children and Youth Services obtained custody of Plaintiff Victor Walthour, Sr.'s minor children; Walthour, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint asserting constitutional violations against numerous defendants including state judges, CYS employees, a guardian ad litem, a doctor, and a state trooper. The defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted all motions and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The core reasoning centered on judicial immunity for the judicial defendants, insufficient factual allegations to state claims against the remaining defendants, and other deficiencies in the pleadings that barred relief.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

In Henning v. Suarez Corp. Industries, Inc., the plaintiff sued an Ohio corporation in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for product liability claims, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and violations of the Restatement of Torts arising from severe burns caused by a defective portable heater shipped to his home in White Haven, Pennsylvania. The defendant removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and moved to dismiss for improper venue or transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After jurisdictional discovery on the defendant's contacts with the Eastern District—including shipments totaling $13 million (1.7% of sales), advertising expenditures, distributor networks, and website/telephone activity—the court concluded these contacts were not continuous and systematic enough to support general personal jurisdiction. The court therefore transferred the action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), where venue is proper because the plaintiff resides there and the injury occurred there.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Michael Sharp sued his former employer Penske Buick GMC, Inc., alleging that he was unlawfully terminated at age 62 due to his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that Sharp failed to establish a prima facie case or satisfy the but-for causation standard from Gross v. FBL Financial Services, and that it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. The court denied the motion in full after a hearing, finding that Sharp presented sufficient evidence—including repeated comments by the owner about wanting a younger and more energetic employee—to create genuine issues of material fact under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court also held that the same analysis applied to the parallel state-law claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Pennsylvania homeowners who allege that First American Title Insurance Company, through its agents, overcharged them for title insurance by applying the basic rate instead of discounted reissue or refinance rates required under state regulations, as part of a scheme to defraud. Plaintiffs brought claims under RICO for a racketeering enterprise involving mail and wire fraud, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and related state claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss in full, holding that plaintiffs adequately alleged a distinct RICO enterprise and predicate acts of fraud, that no exhaustion of administrative remedies was required under the Title Insurance Companies Act, that the claims were not preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and that the state-law claims were viable.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involves allegations that Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, through its agents, systematically overcharged Pennsylvania homeowners for title insurance by applying basic rates instead of discounted reissue or refinance rates required under state regulations, as part of an alleged scheme to defraud. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class, brought claims under RICO for a racketeering enterprise involving mail and wire fraud, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and related state claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full. It reasoned that plaintiffs adequately alleged a distinct enterprise, predicate acts of fraud through misrepresentations on HUD-1 statements and failures to disclose discounted rates, and that the claims were not barred by exhaustion requirements or the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves allegations that Lawyers Title Insurance Company, through its agents, systematically overcharged Pennsylvania homeowners for title insurance by applying the basic rate instead of discounted reissue or refinance rates required by state regulations, as part of an alleged racketeering scheme. Plaintiffs brought claims under RICO for mail and wire fraud, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and related state claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs adequately alleged a RICO enterprise distinct from the defendant and predicate acts of fraud via the use of HUD-1 statements, that administrative remedies did not need to be exhausted first, that the claims were not preempted by federal insurance law, and that the other causes of action were viable.

business & regulatorycriminal lawproperty

In Hopkins v. New Day Financial, nine former Account Executives sued their employer, a mortgage company, and two executives under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages after alleging they were required to work over 63 hours per week without breaks or proper compensation. The defendants moved to dismiss the case and compel arbitration pursuant to agreements the plaintiffs had signed as a condition of employment, which included class action waivers and fee-shifting provisions. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, claiming the agreements were signed under duress and were unconscionable due to the circumstances of their execution, such as pressure during meetings and lack of explanation. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and ordered a jury trial to resolve factual disputes over the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreements.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Home Line Furniture Industries, Inc., a furniture manufacturer, and Banner Retail Marketing, LLC, a marketing firm, stemming from confidentiality agreements under which Home Line disclosed details of its proprietary Web Partner Program to Banner. Home Line alleged that Banner breached these agreements by copying the program and marketing a similar version to Home Line's competitors. The court granted Home Line's petition for a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing. The decision was based on credible testimony showing that the information was a protectable trade secret under Pennsylvania law and that Banner had misused it in violation of the agreements.

business & regulatory

In Bomanski v. US Airways Group, Inc., the plaintiff, an airline passenger, sued the airline for negligence after being struck on the head by another passenger's luggage that fell from an overhead compartment while the plane was still at the gate before departure. The defendant moved for summary judgment, raising issues of federal preemption of state law in air safety, the need for an identified federal standard of care, and whether the plaintiff had shown a breach of that standard. The court granted the motion, holding that federal aviation law preempts state common-law negligence claims in this area under Third Circuit precedent. It further found that the plaintiff had not identified or provided evidence of a violation of any specific federal regulation governing baggage stowage or aircraft operation that applied before takeoff.

torts & liabilityfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a business dispute in which plaintiff Home Line Furniture Industries sued defendant Banner Retail Marketing for breach of confidentiality agreements, alleging that Banner had copied plaintiff's proprietary internet marketing program and shared it with competitors after being hired as a marketing consultant. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Pennsylvania state court on the same day the complaint was filed, without prior notice or a hearing for the defendant. After the case was removed to federal court, the defendant moved to reconsider and dissolve the TRO. The court granted the motion and dissolved the order, holding that the TRO was invalid because Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531(a) permits ex parte injunctive relief only upon a showing that immediate and irreparable injury would occur before notice could be given, which was not demonstrated, and the defendant had not received adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves Perma-Liner Industries suing former installer U.S. Sewer & Drain and its president Bowman, former employee Hawkins, and their new competing company Global Pipeline Systems for breach of confidentiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets and customer information, unfair competition, defamation, and related claims arising from the defendants' formation of Global and alleged solicitation of Perma-Liner's customers using confidential data and false statements. The court addressed motions to dismiss, to strike, and for a more definite statement filed by the defendants. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing some claims such as the Pennsylvania Trademark Act count while allowing others to proceed based on the sufficiency of the allegations under Pennsylvania and Florida law. The core reasoning evaluated whether the complaint stated plausible claims for relief, considering choice-of-law provisions and the elements of each cause of action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Liko AB, a manufacturer of patient lifts and slings, suing Rise Lifts, Inc. and Romedic, Inc. for allegedly infringing its federal trademark 'REPO SHEET' on defendants' website and products, as well as trade dress infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and common law unfair competition. After a prior order requiring more specific pleading, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and defendants moved to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion, finding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged ownership and validity of the mark, likelihood of consumer confusion, and the other required elements for each count under the applicable standards from Twombly and Third Circuit precedent. The sufficiency of the false designation and unfair competition claims was upheld because they depended on the adequately pleaded trademark and trade dress counts.

business & regulatoryprocedure