David S. Cercone

The case involved plaintiffs suing Fayette County, its officials, the airport authority, and others over alleged zoning enforcement actions, failures to investigate violations on neighboring property, and retaliation, including claims of substantive due process violations and First Amendment retaliation tied to property use and eviction proceedings. The district court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations. It dismissed the substantive due process claim with prejudice for lack of a protected property interest in freedom from personal anguish or aesthetic preferences regarding adjacent land, and dismissed time-barred portions of the First Amendment claims with prejudice because the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to extend the limitations period beyond conduct before January 18, 2009. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint.

civil rightsfree speechpropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Ambulance Association of Pennsylvania and managed care insurers over whether non-contracting ambulance providers are entitled to direct and timely payment for services under Pennsylvania's Quality Health Care Accountability and Protection Act (Act 68). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they could submit clean claims and receive payment directly from the defendants within 45 days. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plain language of Act 68 and its regulations limits the prompt payment requirements to participating providers who furnish services under a managed care plan contract. Non-participating providers like the plaintiffs fall outside this definition and thus have no statutory right to direct payment, as confirmed by principles of statutory construction that give effect to the legislature's chosen terms.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition by Michael Alonzo Harris challenging the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his federal sentence, specifically its refusal to designate his federal sentence to run concurrently with a state sentence and to award prior custody credit. The court denied the petition, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The core reasoning was that the BOP acted within its discretion in denying a nunc pro tunc concurrent designation because the federal sentencing court had explicitly declined to make the sentences concurrent, and any claim regarding prior custody credit was not ripe for review as the federal sentence had not yet been computed and administrative remedies had not been exhausted.

criminal lawfederal power

In Shanefelter v. United States Steel Corp., plaintiff Dawn Shanefelter sued her former employer U.S. Steel, her union, and several union officials in state court, asserting state-law claims including breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, intentional interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation arising from her 2004 workplace injury, workers' compensation settlement, and 2008 termination for failure to return to work. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA and § 9(a) of the NLRA because they depended on interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement; they also moved to dismiss, while plaintiff moved to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that certain claims were preempted by federal labor law (including the duty of fair representation) and thus removable and time-barred, while others could proceed or required further analysis under the federal standards. The reasoning centered on whether the state claims were founded directly on or substantially dependent upon the collective bargaining agreement, triggering federal question jurisdiction and displacement of state law.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiffs, pro-life advocates seeking to distribute literature, challenged Pittsburgh Ordinance § 601.62, which prohibits distributing handbills and similar materials on public and private property in ways that cause litter or interfere with pedestrian traffic, and also restricts placement on vehicles without consent. They filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing the ordinance unconstitutionally restricts their First Amendment rights. After hearings, the court found a reasonable probability of success on the merits, irreparable harm from restricted speech, no harm to the city from the injunction, and that the public interest favored protecting constitutional rights. The court granted the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against the plaintiffs and others distributing leaflets. The reasoning centered on the ordinance's potential overbreadth in restricting protected speech without sufficient justification.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved a motion to quash subpoenas issued by defendants to third-party employers in a Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC and plaintiff-intervenor Moncel Deitz against her former employer, Donohue Cardiology Associates. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, narrowing the subpoenas to specific categories of employment and medical records while quashing requests for broader information about the plaintiff-intervenor's post-separation conduct. The core reasoning was that unlimited subpoenas exceeded the scope of legitimate discovery, and Federal Rule of Evidence 412 prohibits evidence or discovery of an alleged victim's sexual behavior or predisposition in sexual harassment cases unless its probative value substantially outweighs the risk of harm and prejudice, a standard defendants did not meet for unrelated workplace incidents.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

McMillen Engineering sued its insurers, Travelers and Navigators, seeking a ruling on which policy covered a demand for payment stemming from ground slippage that damaged a slope and nearby property during a redevelopment project where McMillen provided engineering services. The court granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment. The record showed McMillen knew by September 2005 of the slide, related damage to a state road and third-party property, and a negligence claim by Verizon, yet failed to disclose these facts in its Navigators policy application. Under the policy's prior-knowledge exclusion and application representations, this nondisclosure barred coverage for any claims arising from those circumstances.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Paul L. Mussi sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after his application for disability insurance benefits was denied. He claimed an inability to work since June 2003 due to a left shoulder injury sustained during military service in Iraq, along with related physical and mental health conditions. The ALJ denied benefits following a hearing, and the Appeals Council upheld that decision. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Mussi's motion and denied the Commissioner's, reversing the administrative denial. The court's decision rested on its review of the administrative record, including medical evidence from military and VA facilities showing ongoing shoulder impairment and other limitations.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by a longtime employee of the Chartiers Valley School District who had risen to assistant superintendent. After testifying under oath at a public hearing about another employee's failure to obtain required certification, the plaintiff alleged that the district opened her position and declined to renew her contract in response to that testimony. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction after finding she was likely to succeed on the merits. It applied the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting framework and determined that her testimony constituted protected speech on a matter of public concern and was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment actions. The district's stated reasons for non-renewal were deemed insufficient to rebut the evidence of retaliation.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned whether Dominion Peoples Gas Company violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 by terminating natural gas service to Chapter 13 debtors Michael and Lori Weisel for nonpayment of post-petition utility bills without first obtaining relief from the stay. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to Dominion and dismissal of the debtors' complaint. The core reasoning was that 11 U.S.C. § 366 permits a utility to terminate service for post-petition delinquencies after the debtor provides adequate assurance of payment, without requiring court approval, provided state-law termination procedures are followed; this rule applies across bankruptcy chapters and does not distinguish between pre- and post-petition accounts once a new post-petition account is opened.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this insurance coverage dispute, Treesdale, Inc. and Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company sought a declaratory judgment that two umbrella policies issued by TIG Insurance Company (formerly International) provided coverage for thousands of asbestos-related bodily injury claims stemming from the companies' prior manufacturing and distribution activities. The defendant raised an affirmative defense that asbestos exclusions in the policies barred coverage for the claims. Treesdale moved for partial judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), contending that the broader Coverage B in the umbrella policies did not incorporate the exclusions from the underlying primary policies or Coverage A. After reviewing the policy language and applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, the court denied the motion, concluding that material factual issues remained and that Treesdale had not clearly established entitlement to coverage as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, a defendant facing federal drug trafficking charges objected to the government's pretrial request for a DNA sample under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act and its implementing regulation. The defendant argued that the collection would be an unreasonable warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment and that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to authorize it for arrestees. The court analyzed the issue by recognizing DNA collection as a search, then balancing the individual's privacy interests against governmental needs for identification and database inclusion under a totality-of-circumstances reasonableness test, while reviewing precedents on convicted persons, probationers, and pretrial detainees. The opinion discussed varying circuit approaches but did not reach a final holding in the provided excerpt.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case involves Daniel J. Natale's challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on heart disease and depression. The court reviewed the administrative record and the decisions of the Administrative Law Judges, which had found Natale not disabled. After considering the medical evidence, including opinions from treating and examining physicians, the court determined that substantial evidence established Natale was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act as of December 4, 2004. Consequently, the court granted Natale's motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case with instructions to award benefits.

federal powerhealthcare

The case concerned a mortgage on a Pennsylvania home held by a married couple as tenants by the entireties, where only the husband signed the mortgage and note despite the wife's knowledge and consent, and the mortgage was recorded. In the couple's Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trustee sought to avoid the lien as unenforceable under the strong-arm powers of 11 U.S.C. § 544(a), citing the Statute of Frauds. The bankruptcy court ruled the mortgage invalid and the claim unsecured, but the district court reversed on appeal. The district court held that Pennsylvania entireties law creates a presumption allowing one spouse to bind both, making the mortgage enforceable here with no fraud concerns, so the recorded mortgage gave the trustee constructive notice and could not be avoided.

property

The case involved state law claims by Wilmington Trust, as trustee for bonds issued to finance airport facilities at Pittsburgh International Airport, against Allegheny County, ACIDA, and the Airport Authority for breach of contract, trespass, and possession after US Air's bankruptcy filing. The dispute centered on a 1980 ground lease and 1991 sublease and refinancing bonds, specifically whether US Air properly exercised an option to extend the lease term to 2021 before its bankruptcy triggered an event of default allowing termination. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment by examining the lease terms, the requirement for timely extension direction, and the effect of the bankruptcy on the parties' rights under the trust indenture and related agreements.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who was denied admission to a state trooper cadet program due to his diabetes and sued the defendants for disability discrimination, claiming they regarded him as substantially limited in major life activities. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after de novo review. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's medical expert reports and other evidence failed to show that the defendants perceived him as disabled under the ADA standards; rather, the rejection was based on a legitimate risk assessment stemming from his history of inconsistent diabetes control, without evidence of broader perceived impairments in thinking, concentrating, or other functions. Expert reports were also deemed inadmissible or insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned a claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) alleging that Sky Bank violated disclosure requirements by excluding a voluntary debt cancellation insurance fee from its calculation of the finance charge without properly disclosing its voluntary nature on the creditor's own forms, though the information was provided separately by a third party. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It held that recovery of actual damages under TILA section 1640(a) requires proof of detrimental reliance, meaning the plaintiff must show he read the disclosures, understood the charges, would have sought a lower price if the disclosure had been accurate, and would have obtained one. The plaintiff could not satisfy these elements because he had received all required information and voluntarily elected the coverage.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Shelly Guthrie's claims against staffing agency Liken, FedEx entities, and others under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging she faced gender-based sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment that led to her constructive discharge, with some incidents occurring while working in a subcontractor's truck at a FedEx facility. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they could not be liable because the key harassment did not occur at their workplace or during her direct work for them, and they also sought sanctions for bringing claims against them. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation, granting summary judgment only on the withdrawn retaliation count (Count III) but denying it on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims (Counts I and II), reasoning that employers may have obligations to respond to harassment complaints even if prior incidents occurred off-site with related personnel, and that factual disputes exist regarding the adequacy of any response and whether conditions were intolerable. The court also denied the sanctions motion, finding the claims were not frivolous given the legal standards for employer liability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved an employee's claims against her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, based on absences related to her bronchitis treatment and caring for her mother's medical needs. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. It reasoned that the plaintiff's single treatment for bronchitis over two years did not meet the regulatory definition of a chronic serious health condition, that notices of absences were patently insufficient to alert the employer to potential FMLA-qualifying conditions, and that the plaintiff never applied for FMLA leave or established a connection to protected activity for the retaliation claim. The court also found insufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment standards under Third Circuit precedent.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a student suing his teacher, school district, and board of education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the teacher's act of punching him in the classroom violated his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs further alleged that the district and board should be held liable for failing to address the teacher's prior alleged misconduct, thereby condoning a pattern of abuse. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants after finding no genuine issue of material fact, as the evidence did not establish a custom, policy, or deliberate indifference by the school entities. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure