Robert F. Kelly

This case involved a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by plaintiff Mahtab Matin against the law firm Fulton, Friedman & Gullace LLP, alleging that the firm made false or misleading threats of litigation to collect a credit card debt without intending to file suit. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Matin failed to produce evidence showing the underlying debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, which is a threshold requirement for any FDCPA claim; her testimony that she could not recall her purchases on the GE Money Bank card, combined with the lack of other supporting facts, was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on this element.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Nancy Thomer's claim that defendant Allstate Insurance Company acted in bad faith by delaying investigation and making unreasonable offers in handling her underinsured motorist (UIM) claim following a 2002 motor vehicle accident. Thomer alleged permanent injuries including traumatic brain injury and cognitive deficits that prevented her from working, supported by treatment records from multiple physicians showing post-concussive syndrome and related conditions. Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing that objective medical evidence and its claims-handling process demonstrated a reasonable basis for its decisions on coverage and valuation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some aspects of the bad faith allegations raised triable issues of fact regarding the reasonableness of Allstate's actions while others did not.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Paul A. Friend sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, which he claimed on the basis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, hepatitis C, and angina with an onset date in 2007. The ALJ found that Friend met the listings for mental impairments due to repeated episodes of decompensation and was therefore disabled, but also determined that his substance dependence was a contributing factor material to the disability finding under 20 C.F.R. § 416.935, rendering him ineligible for benefits. On review, the court applied the substantial-evidence standard and the five-step sequential evaluation process, concluding that the ALJ properly assessed Friend's residual functional capacity and that, absent substance abuse, he could perform his past relevant work as an inventory clerk (as actually performed) or other light, unskilled jobs. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court ordered, that Friend's request for review be denied and judgment entered for the Commissioner.

healthcarefederal power

This case involves defendant George Georgiou's post-trial motion for a new trial under Rule 33 after a jury convicted him of conspiracy, four counts of securities fraud, and four counts of wire fraud. The court denied the motion in full, rejecting claims that it had improperly allowed interpretation testimony from government witnesses including an undercover FBI agent, that lay opinion testimony violated evidentiary rules, that the defendant was denied the ability to introduce evidence of a cooperating witness's other crimes, that jury instructions were erroneous, and that the government made improper or inconsistent arguments. The core reasoning was that the challenged testimony was properly limited to the witnesses' own understandings of events to explain their conduct rather than the defendant's intent, that objections were either untimely or addressed by curative instructions informing the jury of its role in determining intent, and that other asserted errors did not warrant relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a multiemployer pension fund's appeal of an arbitration award under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, in which the fund sought to collect withdrawal liability from employer D.A. Nolt, Inc. after Nolt stopped contributing following the end of a collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator ruled that Nolt owed no withdrawal liability, citing flaws in the fund's calculations, including improper retroactive adjustments to unfunded vested benefit liabilities and issues with the timing of Nolt's withdrawal from the bargaining association. The court affirmed the arbitrator's decision in full, holding that Nolt was not bound by the successor agreement and rejecting the fund's revised liability assessment as inconsistent with statutory requirements. The court also denied Nolt's request for attorneys' fees.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a former Sears employee who sued the company after being terminated in a November 2007 reduction in force while on FMLA leave for rheumatoid arthritis; he alleged FMLA interference and retaliation, plus breach of contract based on a leave expiration notice and employee handbook. The court granted summary judgment to Sears on all claims. It reasoned that the termination resulted from a legitimate, company-wide RIF decided without knowledge of the plaintiff's prior FMLA leave, that the plaintiff failed to show pretext or interference with FMLA rights, and that no enforceable contract arose because the employment was at-will with explicit disclaimers in the acknowledgment form and handbook.

labor & employment

Calvin Purnell sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his Supplemental Security Income claim, alleging disability from hearing loss, diabetes, arm and neck pain, and depression. The district court examined the ALJ's finding that Purnell retained the residual functional capacity for a restricted range of light work after applying the five-step sequential evaluation process. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in part, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's assessment of Purnell's mental impairments, and granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The core reasoning focused on whether the Commissioner's final decision was backed by substantial evidence in the record under the Social Security Act's standards for proving inability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

healthcare

Roland Mracek sued Bryn Mawr Hospital and Intuitive Surgical after a 2005 robotic prostatectomy using the da Vinci system malfunctioned with repeated error messages, forcing the surgical team to abandon the robot and complete the procedure laparoscopically after a 45-minute delay. Mracek claimed the malfunction caused total erectile dysfunction and ongoing abdominal pain, asserting claims for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and strict malfunction liability. The court granted Intuitive's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Mracek failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements, including that the robot was defective or that any defect caused his injuries under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A or related doctrines.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case concerns a photographer who alleged that a newspaper publisher copied and used two of his altered skyline photographs—one in an advertising insert and the other on the front page of its paper—without permission or attribution. The plaintiff asserted claims including copyright infringement under federal law, appropriation under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, violations of the Lanham Act, and related requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The defendant moved to dismiss several counts of the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after applying the standard for legal sufficiency of claims under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations as true, and examining the copyright statutes and tort principles at issue.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Nexans Inc. against General Cable Technologies Corp. seeking a ruling of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 5,767,441, which covers paired electrical cables with specific twist lengths for improved high-frequency data transmission. The court issued a claim construction ruling defining multiple terms from the patent, such as 'individually twisted balanced cable pair,' 'cable pair,' and 'second twist length,' with the latter construed to allow the second twist length to be the same as or different from the first based on the specification's language and absence of any disclaimer. The constructions were determined using the patent's intrinsic evidence, ordinary meaning to a person skilled in the art, and Federal Circuit precedents on claim interpretation.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between a commercial roofing company (Nolt), a labor union (Local 30), and a multi-employer association (RCA) over Nolt's obligations under a new collective bargaining agreement negotiated in 2000. Nolt joined the RCA in 1999 and voted to approve the agreement but later attempted to withdraw, claiming it was not bound by the 2001-2009 contract; it then sued the union and RCA for common-law fraud based on the early and confidential negotiations. The court granted summary judgment to Local 30 and the RCA while denying Nolt's motion, finding no evidence of fraudulent intent by the defendants and no recoverable damages from the alleged fraud. The decision noted that a prior Third Circuit ruling addressed only unusual circumstances for withdrawal under labor law, not the elements of fraud, and that attorney's fees are unavailable in common-law fraud actions.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Jay Doroshow, a CVS pharmacist, who sought long-term disability benefits under a Hartford group policy after being diagnosed with ALS in March 2007. Hartford denied the claim under the policy's pre-existing condition exclusion, citing medical records showing that Doroshow had received treatment and advice for motor neuron disease symptoms, including discussion of ALS, during the three-month look-back period before his coverage effective date. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, holding that the insurer's determination was not arbitrary and capricious because the records documented relevant medical advice within the exclusionary window and the condition was not an unsuspected one misdiagnosed as something else. The decision applied the policy's definition of pre-existing condition and distinguished the facts from precedent involving truly latent or unsuspected illnesses.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case arose when Healthcare Advocates sued the Harding law firm, alleging that the firm improperly accessed archived screenshots of the plaintiff's public website using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine during pre-discovery investigation in related trademark and trade secret litigation; the plaintiff claimed this bypassed its robots.txt file and constituted hacking or copyright infringement. The Harding firm had viewed and printed the archived pages to assess the merits of the claims against its clients but did not save them to hard drives. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. It reasoned that the firm's limited use of publicly available archived material qualified as fair use under the Copyright Act, weighing the purpose of the use in litigation defense, the nature of the work, the amount used, and the lack of market harm.

procedureproperty

This case involves plaintiffs Jamie and Rebecca Gannon suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the government negligently licensed the production and release of an oral polio vaccine contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus that they claim caused Jamie Gannon's medulloblastoma brain tumor diagnosed in 2000. The opinion addresses a bench trial where the court conducted combined Daubert and merits examinations of expert witnesses on whether SV40 causes human medulloblastomas and specifically caused the plaintiff's tumor. The court denied the defendant's Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiffs' causation expert and considered a Rule 52(c) motion for judgment on partial findings regarding causation, applying the standard that allows the judge as factfinder to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes without drawing inferences favoring the nonmovant. The reasoning emphasizes the flexibility of bench trial procedures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) and related precedents, permitting dispositive findings on evidence presented even before all proof is complete.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

In Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., Agrizap sued Woodstream for infringing its patent on a portable pest electrocution device and for fraudulent misrepresentation related to sending the device overseas for evaluation. A jury found Woodstream liable on both claims and awarded over $2.7 million in damages. The court granted Woodstream's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the patent infringement claim, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Claim 16 was infringed, but denied the motion on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdict, and also denied requests for remittitur and a new trial.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Agrizap sued Woodstream over alleged fraudulent misrepresentations related to the Rat Zapper product and a confidentiality agreement. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Woodstream on most state law claims but allowed a fraudulent misrepresentation claim to proceed. On a motion for clarification, the court explained that only one of the six alleged misrepresentations—the statement that the Rat Zapper was being sent overseas solely for cost evaluation—survived summary judgment. The other five did not survive because Agrizap failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact for each, as required at the summary judgment stage under Rule 56. The court emphasized that the ambiguous phrasing in its prior opinion referred only to the single misrepresentation for which factual disputes existed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from the 2000 crash of a Mooney M20K aircraft that killed pilot Peter Sandek and his family, leading to wrongful death and survival actions filed by estate representative Ralph Taylor against aircraft manufacturer Mooney and component maker Honeywell. The claims alleged strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and related theories based on the failure of the vacuum-powered attitude indicator system. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims, holding that Georgia law barred recovery due to lack of privity for warranty claims, absence of evidence supporting misrepresentation or failure-to-warn theories, and no duty owed by Honeywell regarding a third-party vacuum pump.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Agrizap, Inc. suing Woodstream Corp. for patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,949,636 on a portable pest electrocution device (the Rat Zapper), after an earlier marketing agreement between the parties broke down and Woodstream introduced its own competing electronic traps. Woodstream moved for partial summary judgment of noninfringement on claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 16 of the patent. The court denied the motion as to literal infringement because the parties' expert declarations created genuine issues of material fact. The court granted the motion as to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, holding that prosecution history estoppel barred Agrizap's equivalents theory because the patent amendments were directly related to the functions now performed by the accused microprocessor-based devices and were not merely tangential to the prior art.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Agrizap, maker of the Rat Zapper electronic rodent trap, and Woodstream, a potential distributor, after negotiations for a marketing agreement broke down. Agrizap alleged that Woodstream misused confidential information to develop a competing product, leading to claims under California unfair business practices law, breach of an oral contract, intentional misrepresentation, and trade disparagement. The court granted partial summary judgment to Woodstream on the unfair practices, breach of contract, and trade disparagement claims, finding the parties' dealings governed by the UCC with no enforceable oral modifications or fiduciary duties, while denying summary judgment on the intentional misrepresentation claim due to remaining factual issues. The decision focused on the written purchase orders, invoices, and lack of evidence supporting the dismissed claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed claims of its U.S. Patent No. 5,949,636 for a portable pest electrocution device called the Rat Zapper, in addition to raising related contract and unfair business practices claims. The court construed the disputed patent claims by examining the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history as intrinsic evidence. It then evaluated the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling of patent unenforceability and invalidity. Finding genuine issues of material fact after claim construction, the court denied the motion for partial summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure