Marvin Katz

This case concerned a challenge by judicial candidates and a nonprofit group to portions of Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically the 'pledges and promises' and 'commits' clauses of Canon 7B(1)(c), which bar judicial candidates from making certain statements about issues likely to come before the court. The plaintiffs argued that these restrictions violated the First Amendment by preventing candidates from responding to questionnaires on disputed legal and political issues. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, denied the plaintiffs' motion, and vacated a prior preliminary injunction, upholding the clauses. It adopted a narrow construction limiting the clauses to actual or apparent commitments on cases or issues before the court, excluding mere announcements of general views, and found that this interpretation served Pennsylvania's compelling interest in preserving judicial impartiality and open-mindedness while being narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny.

free speechelections

The case involved judicial candidates and a nonprofit group challenging provisions of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct that barred candidates from making pledges or promises about their conduct in office or statements that commit or appear to commit them on cases or issues likely to come before the court. Plaintiffs argued these 'pledges and promises' and 'commits' clauses were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the First Amendment and prevented them from answering questionnaires on disputed legal and political issues. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the clauses, finding a likelihood of success on the merits based on precedents striking down similar rules, irreparable harm from chilled speech, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored allowing candidates to respond to the questionnaires while the litigation proceeded.

free speechelectionscivil rights

The case concerns a First Amendment challenge by the Pennsylvania Family Institute and several judicial candidates to two clauses in Canon 7B(1)(c) of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, which bar judicial candidates from making pledges or promises of conduct in office (other than faithful performance of duties) or statements that commit or appear to commit them on cases or issues likely to come before the court. Plaintiffs argued that the pledges-and-promises and commits clauses are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on their face and as applied to their proposed answers to questionnaires from advocacy groups. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the dispute was ripe because the candidates faced a credible threat of disciplinary enforcement and because prior advisory bodies had provided no clarifying guidance on the clauses' scope.

free speechelections

The case involved a plaintiff convicted on multiple counts in a federal criminal prosecution for an international conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and related money laundering offenses, who then filed a civil action against fifteen federal employees, four agencies, and the United States seeking $750 million in damages plus administrative discipline for alleged constitutional and statutory violations during the investigation and trial. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Core reasoning included that sovereign immunity barred claims against the United States and its agencies, absolute immunity protected prosecutors for actions in court, and many claims failed to state viable causes of action or were preempted, while certain claims against individual defendants could proceed under exceptions in statutes like the Federal Tort Claims Act or civil remedies provisions.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

The case arose from a failed purchase of a pickup truck, where the Pennsylvania plaintiff alleged that Alabama defendants failed to provide required federal odometer disclosures and other information, leading to claims for rescission, fraud, and violations of state consumer protection laws, with damages capped below $75,000. After the defendants removed the action from state court to federal district court, the plaintiff moved to remand, contending that removal was untimely and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that the notice of removal was filed within the thirty-day window under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) measured from service of the complaint and that Count II for rescission presented a substantial federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it required interpretation of 49 U.S.C. § 32705. The court further concluded it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

procedure

In Nelson v. Warden of C.F.C.F., a prisoner sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his placement in medical quarantine after refusing a mandatory blood draw, along with resulting restrictions on library access, showers, phone use, and recreation, violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Defendants Lt. Brent and Lt. Sweeney moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not exhausted available prison administrative remedies before filing suit. The court granted the motion, finding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires exhaustion of grievance procedures in all inmate suits concerning prison conditions, that the plaintiff received the inmate handbook describing those procedures, and that no grievances were filed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Verizon seeking to enforce a twelve-month non-competition agreement against former executive Christopher Pizzirani after he resigned to join competitor Comcast. The court granted Verizon's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Pizzirani from working at Comcast in a competitive role until October 2007 and from disclosing confidential information. The decision rested on findings that the parties were direct competitors with overlapping service areas, that Pizzirani had held senior positions with access to sensitive broadband and deployment strategies, and that the restrictive covenant was a valid, enforceable contract under New York law supported by the stock-unit awards he received. The court also determined that Verizon would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief and that the balance of equities favored enforcement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved the revocation of supervised release for defendant Martinez-Luna, who had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was serving a term of supervised release with conditions prohibiting new crimes and illegal drug use. The court found that Martinez-Luna committed a Grade B violation by being convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and a Grade C violation based on multiple positive cocaine tests and his admission of cocaine use. After a hearing, the court revoked supervised release, determining that prior outpatient treatment programs had been insufficient to prevent repeated violations. It sentenced the defendant to four months in custody with no additional supervised release term, applying the guidelines range for a Grade B violation given his criminal history category of I.

criminal law

The case involved the revocation of supervised release for defendant Dempsey Washington, who had previously been sentenced for armed bank robbery and later committed another bank robbery while on release. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Washington violated the standard condition prohibiting commission of new crimes, based on his guilty plea to robbing a PNC Bank in January 2006 and the supporting facts including GPS tracking evidence and his admissions. After considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 18-24 months for the Grade A violation, the court revoked supervised release and imposed an 18-month prison term to be served consecutively to his new 120-month sentence, with no additional supervised release.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant indicted on two counts of bank robbery who pleaded guilty and moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.20 on the ground of aberrant behavior. The court denied the motion, finding that the offenses did not meet the guideline's requirements of a single criminal occurrence or transaction committed without significant planning, of limited duration, and representing a marked deviation from an otherwise law-abiding life. The court noted that the two robberies involved handwritten notes referencing a gun, were separated by time and location, and occurred against a background of ongoing substance abuse that undermined claims of exceptionality based on mental or emotional condition.

criminal law

The case involves defendant Robert G. Dietz, who was indicted on charges of knowingly possessing and transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of federal law. The defendant moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to search warrants from his home and AOL email accounts, as well as statements made to federal agents. The court denied the motion to suppress the evidence from the warrants, finding that both were supported by probable cause based on undercover FBI operations in which the defendant exchanged images of child sexual activity via AOL, that the warrants were issued by magistrate judges upon sworn affidavits, and that they particularly described the places and items to be searched. The court deferred ruling on the motions to suppress the defendant's statements until a scheduled hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Thomas Olick's claims against his former employer Knights of Columbus, colleagues James Kearney and Thomas Jenkins, and insurer Aetna arising from an employment contract to sell insurance products, reductions in sales territory and commissions, alleged interference with his work, and denial of group health insurance coverage after a disputed termination date in 2005. Plaintiff asserted eight counts including violations of ERISA and COBRA for unpaid medical expenses, breaches of contract and fiduciary duty, tortious interference, retaliation, age discrimination, and conversion. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, applying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard by accepting well-pleaded facts as true while evaluating the legal sufficiency of each claim, such as ERISA notice requirements, exhaustion of remedies for discrimination claims, and the terms of the employment contract.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved a defendant previously convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base who was serving a five-year term of supervised release after completing a 60-month prison sentence. The Probation Office petitioned to revoke supervised release based on multiple violations, including a new conviction for drug possession, repeated positive drug tests, failure to submit monthly reports, and noncompliance with a required community treatment center placement. The court determined these were Grade C violations under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, carrying a 7-13 month imprisonment range, and revoked supervised release, imposing a 7-month prison term with no further supervised release.

criminal law

In McCauley v. Computer Aid Inc., the plaintiff was offered a job as a Help Desk Analyst with the private defendant company but was terminated after refusing to provide his social security number on required employment forms such as the I-9, health enrollment, and W-4. He sued under multiple federal statutes including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens, Title VII, and others, alleging violations of privacy, due process, equal protection, and national origin discrimination as a natural-born American, plus breach of an employment contract. The court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice, finding that the private employer was not a state actor, that no prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation was stated under Title VII, and that other federal claims lacked legal basis against private parties. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, including breach of contract, and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, a defendant previously convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced in 1992 to 15 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release was brought before the court on a petition to revoke that supervised release after it began in 2003. The court found multiple violations of the release conditions, including new state criminal convictions for disorderly conduct and drug-related offenses, repeated failures to report to probation officers, failure to report a change in residence, and multiple positive drug tests for controlled substances. These were classified as Grade B and C violations under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, with an advisory imprisonment range of 21-27 months. The court revoked the supervised release and imposed a 21-month prison sentence to run concurrently with the defendant's state sentences, with no additional supervised release.

criminal law

In Powell v. Barnhart, the plaintiff sought disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability from neck and back impairments due to multiple falls and prior cervical spine surgery. The ALJ denied benefits at step four, finding that the impairments were severe but did not meet listed criteria and that the claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform his past light work as a sandwich maker. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court upheld the ALJ's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court reasoned that the ALJ's credibility assessment of the claimant's subjective pain complaints and medication side effects was supported by substantial evidence from medical records, examinations showing normal strength and reflexes, and the claimant's work history including a promotion during the alleged disability period.

labor & employment

The case involves a Pennsylvania resident who suffered a finger injury in Colorado from an allegedly defective power window in a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee and sued the manufacturer DaimlerChrysler (after dismissal of the dealer) in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendant moved to transfer venue to the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's choice of his home forum receives substantial deference and that transfer would only shift inconvenience and expense to the less able party without sufficient countervailing factors such as access to proof or witness availability.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to attempting to carry a concealed dangerous weapon on an aircraft and was serving a five-year probation sentence that included conditions to follow probation officer instructions and maintain lawful employment. After a positive drug test, conditions were modified to require drug treatment, but the defendant repeatedly missed intake appointments, failed to submit required job search logs or report as directed on multiple occasions, and did not secure employment or make adequate efforts to do so. The court found these to be Grade C violations of Standard Conditions #3 and #5. It therefore revoked probation and ordered 90 days of community confinement with no further probation term.

criminal law

In Smith v. Steffens, plaintiffs sued for injuries sustained when basement steps collapsed at a home owned by HUD while they were viewing the property as prospective buyers; the case had been removed to federal court after HUD was added as a defendant. The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it could not be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the property's management company was an independent contractor. The court granted the motion after finding that Golden Feather, not HUD, controlled the day-to-day maintenance and operations of the property under the contract, placing the responsibility for safety conditions on the contractor rather than the government.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Haiying Xi suing defendants Shengchun Lu, Chen Yi Yang, Li Xiao Li, and SCOF USA Inc. for specific performance, compensatory and punitive damages based on claims of common law conspiracy, breach of contract, and fraud arising from a contract for goods related to liquor sales. The court dismissed the action sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as complete diversity of citizenship was absent under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because both the plaintiff and defendant Li Xiao Li were Pennsylvania residents. The court explained that federal courts have an obligation to verify jurisdiction at any time and could not drop the non-diverse defendant because she was an indispensable party to the contract dispute.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability