Paul Steven Diamond

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Wilson against Thomas Walker and FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., stemming from a car accident. The plaintiff sought to keep the case in state court by claiming damages under $50,000, but the defendants removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after discovery revealed potential damages exceeding $75,000. The court denied the motion to remand, reasoning that under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff could recover more than the pleaded amount in a de novo trial, and evidence of significant income loss and medical expenses met the federal jurisdictional threshold to a legal certainty.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff William Nolde alleged that defendants, including Joyce Sheed, Silver Buckman, and various companies, tricked him into signing documents that transferred ownership of his Philadelphia home under the false pretense of a home repair loan, resulting in a mortgage, fees paid to defendants, default, and foreclosure. Multiple defendants moved to dismiss the eleven-count complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7), challenging jurisdiction, failure to state claims, joinder, and timeliness of claims including those under RESPA. The court denied the motions, finding that the complaint sufficiently pled the fraud and related claims, that certain statutes of limitations issues could not be resolved at the pleading stage based on the alleged facts, and that the quiet title claim was viable under Pennsylvania law despite the recorded sale.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator John Underwood alleges that Genentech defrauded Medicare and Medicaid by inducing off-label prescriptions of Rituxan through improper marketing and kickbacks to physicians. After the government declined to intervene, the relator sought to amend his complaint with details drawn from millions of documents obtained by the DOJ during its investigation, while Genentech moved to dismiss for failure to plead specific false claims with particularity under Rule 9(b) and opposed the amendment. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the existing complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) by detailing the fraudulent scheme even without identifying individual claims submitted by third parties. In the alternative, the court ruled that amendments based on documents obtained from the government are permissible, unlike those based solely on discovery from the defendant. The court therefore granted leave to file the second amended complaint.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a court-appointed Receiver seeking to recover over $1.1 million in assets allegedly transferred to Malvern Preparatory School from a Ponzi scheme run by Joseph Forte, either directly as charitable donations or indirectly through limited partners. The Receiver brought claims under Pennsylvania's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act for actual fraud and for common-law unjust enrichment. The court denied the school's motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint adequately alleged transfers made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors under PUFTA and that retention of the funds would be inequitable given their origin in the scheme. The decision rested on the particular facts of a Ponzi scheme, where the transfers lacked any legitimate consent or expectation from the defrauded partnership.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the defendant, who had previously pled nolo contendere to statutory sexual assault of an eight-year-old child, was before the court for sentencing on a federal charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court had to decide whether the prior conviction qualified as a 'crime of violence' under the Sentencing Guidelines, which would raise the base offense level from 14 to 20. The court held that it did qualify, relying on the charging document's indication that the victim was eight years old to conclude that the offense involved conduct presenting a serious potential risk of physical injury to another and typically purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct under the Supreme Court's Begay decision. The court rejected arguments based on the categorical approach and the absence of a force element, limiting its analysis to the elements of the offense without considering plea colloquy details.

criminal lawguns

The case involved a reinsurance dispute between PMA Capital Insurance Co. and Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd., concerning the validity and application of a deficit carry forward provision in their 2003 agreement that allowed Platinum to offset prior losses against funds in an experience account. An arbitration panel eliminated the provision from the contract and ordered PMA to pay Platinum $6 million as compensation. PMA petitioned to vacate the award, and the court granted the petition. The court reasoned that the award was completely irrational because arbitrators may not eliminate material contract provisions or grant payments to which a party is not contractually entitled, even under an honorable engagement clause granting broad discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Arrow International counterclaimed that Medical Components (Medcomp) committed inequitable conduct before the USPTO while prosecuting U.S. Patent No. 6,881,211 on multilumen catheters, alleging its attorney failed to disclose key relationships between related patent applications and made other misrepresentations or omissions. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Medcomp, finding that Arrow failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney acted with specific intent to deceive the Patent Office. The court reasoned that any errors were at most negligent, did not involve highly material information, and did not demonstrate a deceptive course of conduct, distinguishing the facts from precedents involving intentional misrepresentations.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, the SEC and CFTC sued defendant Joseph S. Forte for operating a Ponzi scheme that allegedly defrauded investors of about $50 million in violation of securities laws, leading to a consented preliminary injunction and asset freeze to preserve funds for potential disgorgement and penalties. Forte, proceeding pro se, petitioned the court to release over $26,000 in funds to cover monthly living expenses and overdue bills such as mortgages, credit cards, utilities, and health insurance. The court denied the request, reasoning that Forte failed to provide adequate documentation for the expenses, sought to pay non-essential or excessive items not limited to necessities, and that the frozen assets should remain available for equitable remedies in the fraud action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) sued the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeking to compel HUD to enter into a Moving to Work (MTW) funding agreement on PHA's preferred terms after HUD found PHA in default of the prior agreement for failing to ensure handicapped accessibility under federal disability laws. PHA moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, claiming violations of equal protection and the Administrative Procedure Act based on HUD's refusal to renew or extend the existing MTW agreement. The court denied the motion, holding that the challenge to HUD's initial termination letter was moot because it had been rescinded and the agreement expired by its own terms. The court further ruled that PHA failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, as any consequences from rejecting HUD's standard agreement would result from PHA's own choices rather than HUD's actions.

federal powercivil rightsprocedure

In this case, former PNC securities broker Wolfgang Hein sued PNC Financial Services Group under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking overtime pay for himself and other brokers who allegedly worked more than forty hours per week. PNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hein was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) as a highly compensated employee engaged in sophisticated investment advising. The court reviewed undisputed facts showing Hein's professional licenses, twenty years of prior experience, management of multimillion-dollar client accounts, and commission-based compensation averaging over $100,000 annually. Applying Department of Labor regulations that distinguish exempt highly trained advisors from non-exempt sellers of basic products, the court concluded Hein fell into the exempt category. It granted summary judgment to PNC and denied as moot the pending motion to certify a collective action.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Egolf v. Witmer, plaintiffs staged a protest against President Bush's visit by stripping to thong underwear and forming a human pyramid resembling an Abu Ghraib image, intending to convey a message against the Iraq war; state troopers arrested them under Pennsylvania's indecent exposure statute. Plaintiffs sued the troopers, alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the content-neutral statute validly regulated the conduct and that no constitutional violation occurred, and that qualified immunity would apply in any event because the asserted right was not clearly established under existing precedent.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff David Wisniewski claiming that publisher Rodale, Inc. violated the Postal Reorganization Act and state consumer laws by sending books through an annual preview program and demanding payment without proper consent. Rodale sought summary judgment, contending that the federal statute does not create a private right of action. The court granted summary judgment on the federal claim, determining that no private right of action exists under 39 U.S.C. § 3009, and dismissed the state law claims due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim was eliminated.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a methadone treatment center, New Directions Treatment Services, and several of its patients who sued the City of Reading after the city denied a zoning permit to open a facility in a mixed commercial-residential neighborhood under a Pennsylvania statute requiring public input for such uses. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and the Supremacy Clause, seeking to overturn the denial and compel issuance of the permit. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that federal courts should not serve as zoning boards of appeals under controlling Third Circuit precedent. It further reasoned that the state zoning law was not preempted by federal disability statutes, fell within traditional state police powers over land use, and did not create an obstacle to compliance with the Rehabilitation Act or ADA.

civil rightshealthcareproperty

The case involved a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by the mothers of four children murdered by a VA patient against the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging gross negligence in the patient's discharge and failure to treat, detain, or commit him despite his documented severe mental illness, including Intermittent Explosive Disorder, drug addiction, and history of violence. Following a non-jury trial, the court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding the VA liable because its staff failed to review the patient's full medical history, ignored warnings about the risks of expulsion after a knife attack, and proceeded with discharge without psychiatric evaluation, which proximately caused the deaths. The court also held for one plaintiff on a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim based on her sensory perception of the shootings.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involves Joseph Brown, who was suspended and terminated from his part-time role as Centre Township Chief of Police after the Township found he had submitted inaccurate time sheets claiming overlapping work hours. Brown filed a federal complaint alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, deprivation of a liberty interest in his reputation, and related state claims including whistleblower violations, while parallel proceedings addressing many of the same issues were pending in Pennsylvania state courts, including appeals to the Commonwealth Court on the applicability of the Police Tenure Act. Both parties agreed that abstention was appropriate, and the court decided to stay the federal action rather than dismiss it. The core reasoning was that resolution of unsettled state-law questions, such as whether Brown qualified for Act protections and thus had a property interest in his employment, could moot or reshape the federal constitutional claims, warranting abstention under Burford and Pullman doctrines, with a stay required because the plaintiff sought monetary relief.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure