Lawrence F. Stengel

The case involved Ronald Heneghan, a faculty member at Northampton Community College on an initial appointment contract, who sued after the college rescinded its decision to grant him a standard (tenured) appointment. Heneghan alleged a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and gender discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. It reasoned that Heneghan lacked a protected property interest in tenure because the collective bargaining agreement allowed non-renewal of initial appointments without appeal during the first five years and the board's initial vote did not create a binding entitlement. On the discrimination claims, the court found no evidence that gender motivated the decision, as the college cited concerns over collegiality and conduct with students.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Mr. Antkowiak sued TaxMasters and related entities and individuals alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and state laws based on deceptive practices in selling tax resolution services, including undisclosed fees and refund policies. The court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The reasoning focused on the formation and applicability of the arbitration agreement, the sufficiency of allegations regarding the sales process and contract terms, and whether facts supported piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant personally liable.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case concerned Waterfront Renaissance Associates LLP's claims that the Old City Civic Association and Rivers Edge Civic Association breached a 1989 Covenant of Restrictions by failing to support its development rights on a Philadelphia waterfront parcel. The covenant, brokered by the City Planning Commission during rezoning from G-2 to C-4, imposed limits on parking, setbacks, and other features while requiring the associations to assist with permits and variances. In 2005-2006, the associations engaged with city officials regarding an overlay district and height limits, prompting the lawsuit. The court granted the associations' motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, determining that the covenant's terms did not create liability for the alleged conduct.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerns employment discrimination claims brought by Richard Boandl, a former IRS agent with a disability from polio, against the Treasury Department. Boandl alleged he was denied promotions due to his disability, age, and gender; was denied a reasonable accommodation in the form of a cell phone; and suffered retaliation, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that some claims failed for lack of evidence of pretext or an objectively hostile environment while others, including certain failure-to-promote and accommodation claims, raised genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves indirect purchasers of the antidepressant Wellbutrin SR, including health and welfare plans, who filed a class action against GlaxoSmithKline alleging that the company engaged in monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, along with common-law unjust enrichment claims in multiple states. After previously ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court addressed GSK's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint asserting claims under the laws of eighteen to twenty-seven jurisdictions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, conducting a state-by-state analysis to assess whether the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the required elements, such as standing for indirect purchasers, direct benefits for unjust enrichment, or exhaustion of remedies under each state's specific doctrines.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

The case involved Michael and Randall Wright, who were suspected of marijuana distribution based on controlled buys by a confidential informant. DEA agents obtained and executed search warrants for their apartments, recovering large quantities of marijuana, cash, drug paraphernalia, and guns, but the warrants referred to an impounded affidavit for the list of seizable items and lacked a proper attachment describing those items. The brothers moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrants failed to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The court granted the motions to suppress, finding that the warrants were invalid on their face and that the good-faith exception did not apply due to the manner in which the warrants were prepared and issued.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved minor political parties in Pennsylvania and their chairs challenging provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code that allow private challenges to nomination papers for non-major party candidates and permit courts to tax litigation costs against those candidates. The plaintiffs argued these provisions unconstitutionally burden ballot access and chill their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing potential monetary penalties without notice. The court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

electionsfree speech

This case involves Tracey S. Artz suing her former employer, Continental Casualty Co., for employment discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The plaintiff claimed that after being sexually assaulted by a coworker outside of work, the employer initially promised to prevent her interaction with him but later allowed his return, creating a hostile environment and forcing her to take leave. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, determining that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged facts to support her claims of a hostile work environment and related violations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves Waterfront Renaissance Associates challenging a 2006 Philadelphia zoning ordinance that imposed a 65-foot building height restriction, alleging that it violated substantive due process rights by delegating land-use control to private civic associations through a compulsory variance process that enabled ad hoc demands and favoritism. The City moved to dismiss the claim on grounds including lack of standing, unripeness, statute of limitations, and failure to state a viable claim against the municipality. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint's factual allegations were sufficient to proceed, that councilmanic prerogative could establish municipal policy or custom for liability purposes, and that the claim was ripe for review.

business & regulatorycivil rightsproperty

This case involved Allstate Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment on whether its homeowners policy required it to defend or indemnify the Hopfer family members in a state-court wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of Abigail Tagert, who died from a drug overdose at the Hopfers' home. Timothy Hopfer had stolen and injected Dilaudid into Tagert multiple times, pleaded guilty to related criminal charges including drug delivery resulting in death, and the other family members were sued for negligence in failing to seek timely medical help. The court granted Allstate's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the policy's criminal act exclusion—which bars coverage for bodily injury reasonably expected to result from the criminal acts of any insured—precluded any duty to defend or indemnify. The reasoning centered on Pennsylvania insurance law interpreting the exclusion to apply broadly to all insureds when one commits a covered criminal act, even if others were merely negligent.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerns the April 2006 shooting death of Raymond Pelzer by Philadelphia Police Officer Marvin Burton after Pelzer fled during a stop for non-violent illegal activity. Plaintiff Leslie Pelzer brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force against the officer and for failure to train and Monell liability against the City and Police Commissioner, along with state-law claims for battery, assault, wrongful death, and survival. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. After reviewing the record on the officer's training in use-of-force directives and patrol procedures, the absence of a specific foot-pursuit policy, and evidence of prior internal reports on pursuit risks, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between competitors Carpenter Technology Corporation and Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI) in the metallurgy industry over patents for producing large-diameter ingots of nickel base superalloys. Carpenter filed suit seeking declarations that ATI's patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed, while also asserting antitrust claims under the Sherman Act for monopolization through allegedly fraudulent patents and a Lanham Act claim for unfair competition based on ATI's communications with customers. ATI moved to dismiss the antitrust and Lanham Act claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the antitrust claim for insufficient allegations but allowing the Lanham Act claim to proceed after finding the complaint adequately stated a plausible claim regarding misleading representations about the patents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from the bankruptcy court's dismissal of debtor Mary Sanitate's adversary proceeding against mortgage lender Green Tree Consumer Discount Company. Sanitate sought a ruling that Green Tree was bound by the terms of a prior Chapter 13 plan and had violated the Truth in Lending Act and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act in connection with her mortgages. The bankruptcy court granted Green Tree's motion to dismiss after determining that Sanitate failed to demonstrate she could fund a viable Chapter 13 plan. The district court affirmed, explaining that a prior defaulted plan does not bind creditors and that Sanitate's recoupment claims did not resolve the shortfall in proposing a plan that fully pays secured claims.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved claims by plaintiffs, including a non-English-speaking borrower who signed a residential mortgage, that defendants including Countrywide engaged in deceptive practices such as misrepresenting assets, inflating a property appraisal, and providing inadequate explanations of loan documents to enable relatives with poor credit to occupy the home. Countrywide moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' federal and state claims under laws including TILA, RESPA, fraud, negligence, and consumer protection statutes, as well as on its own counterclaims for fraud and civil conspiracy. The court granted summary judgment to Countrywide on all counts against it and on the fraud counterclaim but denied it on the civil conspiracy counterclaim. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements of their claims, such as Countrywide's knowledge of or participation in the alleged misrepresentations, while viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This is an ERISA action by the beneficiary of a disability insurance policy against the insurer for terminating residual disability benefits after three payments. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, holding that the insurer's decision was reasonable under the deferential standard of review applicable to ERISA plans. The policy limited residual disability benefits to a maximum of three months when the disability began within three months of the insured's 65th birthday, and the insurer had conducted a thorough review of medical and financial records confirming the claimant's loss of income qualified for only that period. The court also upheld the insurer's interpretation that the insured was ineligible for renewal of total disability coverage because he was not working full-time at age 65.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Hanover Insurance Company against its insured, Kenneth Ryan, and an injured third party, seeking a ruling that Hanover has no duty to defend or indemnify Ryan in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a 2004 car accident caused by his intoxicated wife while she was providing home day care services. Ryan filed counterclaims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, and intentional/negligent misrepresentation. The court granted Hanover's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the claims for punitive damages on the breach of contract count and the misrepresentation counts, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims. The decision rested on application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to the pleadings, evaluation of policy exclusions, and choice-of-law considerations under Pennsylvania and New York law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case centered on whether insurance policies issued by Columbia Casualty Company and American Insurance Company to AstenJohnson, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products, covered claims arising from asbestos exposure. The policies contained an exclusion for claims resulting from exposure to or contracting asbestosis, and the parties disputed whether this language barred coverage only for asbestosis or for all asbestos-related injuries such as mesothelioma. The court held that the exclusion applied to all asbestos-related claims, denying AstenJohnson coverage under the policies for pending and future lawsuits. This conclusion followed from interpreting the contract language in light of the parties' intent, industry trade usage of the term asbestosis, the parties' own usage, and AstenJohnson's course of performance.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Sykes v. Glaxo-SmithKline, parents sued vaccine manufacturers GSK and Wyeth, along with Bayer, alleging that thimerosal-containing products administered during pregnancy and early childhood caused their son's neurological injuries, bringing state-law claims for defective design and failure to warn. The court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act expressly preempts both strict liability and negligent defective design claims against the vaccine manufacturers. It further analyzed the Vaccine Act's modifications to state-law failure-to-warn claims and considered potential conflict preemption under the FDCA and FDA regulations for labeling and approval processes, while also addressing remaining claims against Bayer and venue transfer motions. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Vaccine Act's text, legislative history, and its interaction with traditional product liability principles, as well as the FDA's regulatory role in approving biological products.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action over the interpretation of a variable universal life insurance contract purchased in 1997, focusing on whether it guarantees daily telephone and facsimile transfers with a fixed 4:15 p.m. cutoff time for the contract's life to support market-timing investments by the Prusky family. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but the court denied both. It held that prior factual findings from an earlier lawsuit are binding, yet the contract language is ambiguous and the negotiation history (including rejected requests for explicit guarantees) creates genuine issues of material fact that prevent resolution as a matter of law.

business & regulatory

Paul Snyder, a locomotive engineer employed by Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation, sued the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act after being medically disqualified from his position in September 2003 due to coronary artery disease and evidence of heart ischemia, although he was reinstated in July 2004 after tests showed no ischemia. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Snyder failed to establish a prima facie case because his condition did not substantially limit a major life activity under the ADA, as interpreted by Supreme Court precedents requiring consideration of mitigating measures and the relative severity of the impairment compared to the general population.

civil rightslabor & employment