Gary L. Lancaster

This case is a wrongful death and loss of consortium action in which plaintiff Phyllis Killmeyer, individually and as executrix of her late husband's estate, alleged that asbestos-containing products manufactured or supplied by defendants including Beazer East and Ferro Engineering caused Harry Killmeyer's 1995 death from lung cancer. Ferro moved for summary judgment on grounds that it had been dismissed from the case by a 1996 state-court order, that exposure and causation could not be shown, and that plaintiff was not the real party in interest due to her chapter 7 bankruptcy; Beazer raised similar real-party and estoppel arguments. The court granted Ferro's motion and dismissed it, denied Beazer's motion, granted the bankruptcy trustee's motion to substitute as plaintiff, and ruled that the plaintiff could proceed solely in her executrix capacity because the survival claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing numerous defendants, including attorneys, judges, and social services, alleging violations of his constitutional rights stemming from state court custody proceedings involving his minor children in Pennsylvania and Colorado. The court considered a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Frank C. Kocevar, Esq. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as they sought to challenge state court judgments, and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), with related claims under §§ 1986 and 1988 also failing. No objections were filed, and the district court adopted the recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

In Goodson v. Maggi, pro se plaintiff Daniel J. Goodson III sued dozens of defendants, including the La Plata County District Court in Colorado, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 arising from state custody proceedings in Pennsylvania and Colorado that resulted in the involuntary termination of his parental rights to three children. The plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including orders nullifying the Colorado court's judgments, changing the children's names, and remanding jurisdiction to Pennsylvania courts. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Colorado court's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims because the state court was an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to final state-court judgments, and the Ex Parte Young exception did not apply absent an ongoing violation of federal law.

family lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case involves a pro se plaintiff suing numerous defendants, including Colorado Judge Douglas S. Walker, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and related statutes for alleged violations of his constitutional rights stemming from state court custody proceedings that resulted in the termination of his parental rights. The plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including orders to reverse the Colorado judgments and return the children. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted Judge Walker's motion to dismiss. The core reasoning was that Judge Walker was entitled to judicial immunity for actions taken in his judicial capacity, the federal court in Pennsylvania lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and claims for injunctive relief against judicial officers were statutorily barred.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a civil rights lawsuit brought by the administrators of Curtis Mitchell's estate against the City of Pittsburgh and other defendants, alleging that emergency responders violated Mitchell's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by failing to provide ambulance transport to a hospital during a severe snowstorm, which allegedly contributed to his death from abdominal pain. The plaintiffs also asserted related Pennsylvania state law claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal section 1983 claim with prejudice, finding that the complaint did not plead facts sufficient to state a plausible substantive due process violation. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded them to state court.

civil rights

This civil rights case arose from the 2006 arrest of Gregory Nykiel following a burglary investigation and vehicle pursuit, during which officers used force to extract him from his car and later transported him to the station where he died; the plaintiff alleged excessive force, failure to provide medical care, municipal failure to train, and related state-law claims for battery, wrongful death, and survival under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the excessive-force claims and punitive-damage requests against the individual officers (Duffy, Mitchell, and Rudzki), finding genuine issues of material fact, but granted summary judgment to the municipalities on all federal and state claims and to the officers on the failure-to-train, medical-care, and certain state-law counts. The core reasoning rested on the absence of evidence supporting municipal liability or qualified immunity bars for the officers' personal conduct, while state claims against the boroughs were barred as a matter of law and those against the officers were dismissed without prejudice pending further proceedings.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an employment discrimination claim brought by Heather Weightman against her former employer, BNY Mellon, under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Weightman alleged that the bank terminated her based on her gender, pregnancy, and familial responsibilities, and also retaliated against her. BNY Mellon moved for summary judgment, asserting that it fired Weightman for repeatedly violating its no-fault attendance policy after warnings. The court granted the motion, finding that Weightman failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and did not show that the bank's stated legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement for a natural gas compressor unit between Kingsly Compression, Inc. and Mountain V Oil & Gas, Inc. Kingsly claimed that Mountain V breached the lease by refusing to accept the unit after it was made available and sought damages including lease payments and related costs, while Mountain V counterclaimed that Kingsly breached by failing to deliver within the agreed timeframe and sought recovery of its prior payments. The court granted Kingsly's motion for summary judgment on liability for the breach of contract claim, finding that the parties had formed a valid lease under which Kingsly performed its obligations by making the unit available within the estimated lead time based on the parties' prior dealings and quotations, while denying Mountain V's motion and ruling its promissory estoppel claim moot. The court deferred final judgment on damages pending further briefing, noting that the ongoing nature of the five-year lease required additional calculations beyond those initially provided.

business & regulatory

This case is a qui tam action under the Federal False Claims Act in which relator August W. Arnold alleges that several engineering and consulting firms falsified the credentials of their consultants to obtain inflated pay rates on Pennsylvania Department of Transportation projects that received federal funding. The court granted motions to dismiss filed by defendants Erdman Anthony Associates, L. Robert Kimball & Associates, and VE Engineering because the relator's allegations against them failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the FCA, as these defendants were not subject to the relator's audits and the issues were revealed through a subsequent public investigation. The court denied motions to dismiss by the remaining defendants without prejudice, allowing them to potentially renew defenses later, and granted summary judgment to one defendant whose motion was conceded.

criminal lawfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit in which inventor Judkins accused HT Window Fashions of infringing two of his patents related to honeycomb window blinds. A jury found that HT willfully infringed one patent, awarded damages of about $155,000, determined that a second patent would be infringed by a different product, and rejected HT's invalidity and unenforceability defenses. In post-trial motions, the court granted a permanent injunction against the infringing double-celled product and prejudgment interest but denied enhanced damages and attorney fees; it also entered judgment as a matter of law for HT on claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for both patents and literal infringement of the second patent, while upholding the remainder of the verdict as supported by sufficient evidence. The court struck certain post-trial declarations as improperly introducing new evidence and modified the injunction pending appeal to allow sales of pre-verdict products under specified conditions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an FDCPA claim and related Pennsylvania state-law claims brought by a widower against a debt collection agency that continued contacting him about his deceased wife's credit card debt after he sent a cease-and-desist letter. The plaintiff alleged violations of the FDCPA's prohibition on further communication after a written request to stop, plus invasion of privacy, negligence, and negligence per se, and sought punitive damages on the state claims. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the state-law counts and on punitive damages. The court denied the motions, holding that genuine factual disputes exist about the number, content, and nature of the calls and letters, that the FDCPA claim is not preempted, and that a jury could reasonably find the conduct sufficiently outrageous to support punitive damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved claims by Kimberly LaGatta that her former employer, the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating her employment because of bipolar disorder and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. The court granted summary judgment for the school on the actual disability and failure-to-accommodate claims, finding no evidence that LaGatta was disabled within the meaning of the statute at the relevant time and that she never requested an accommodation. The court denied summary judgment on the claim that the school regarded LaGatta as disabled and terminated her on that basis, citing evidence that her mother informed the HR director of her bipolar condition shortly before the firing and that the school's stated reasons for termination were inconsistent.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a patent infringement dispute in which Respironics alleged that Invacare's commercial respiratory device infringed claims of the '575 Patent, with additional issues of validity regarding both the '575 and '517 Patents. Following remand from the Federal Circuit with a modified claim construction of the term "shape," the district court granted the parties' renewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that Invacare's device does not infringe because the pressure magnitude is not predetermined, as it varies breath by breath, and that the Younes Article does not anticipate the asserted claims because it fails to disclose the claim elements arranged in the same way. The decision rests on the requirement that magnitude, duration, and shape must all be predetermined under the claims, along with established standards for anticipation requiring identical arrangement of elements.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case is a class action brought by a law firm and an individual against HealthPort, a medical records reproduction company, alleging breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims for overcharging customers beyond the actual and reasonable costs permitted under Pennsylvania law for searching, retrieving, and reproducing medical records. Defendant removed the case from state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting diversity jurisdiction based on an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending the jurisdictional threshold was not met. The court granted remand, holding that because plaintiffs contested jurisdiction, defendant bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims could satisfy the $5 million threshold, which it failed to do; the court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction and denied the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case arose from a contract under which Applications International Corp. (AIC) was to develop and maintain a software system called SCMS for FedEx Ground; after the contract ended, FedEx continued using the system and hired another firm to create a replacement, prompting AIC to assert counterclaims for copyright infringement and trade-secret misappropriation. FedEx moved to exclude the testimony of AIC's expert, Dr. Michael Shamos, who planned to opine on the validity and scope of the copyrights, whether infringement occurred, and whether trade secrets had been misappropriated. The court granted the motion and barred the testimony. It reasoned that the expert report contained only legal conclusions drawn from assumed facts, without independent technical analysis, methodology, or verification that would satisfy the reliability standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was an employment dispute in which plaintiff Dean Rea alleged that defendant Federated Investors violated 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) by refusing to hire him solely because he had previously filed for bankruptcy. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the statute does not bar private employers from denying employment on that basis. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that subsection (a) of § 525 expressly prohibits government employers from denying employment to bankruptcy debtors, while subsection (b) omits that phrase and addresses only termination or other discrimination against existing employees; under ordinary principles of statutory construction, the omission means Congress did not extend the hiring prohibition to private employers.

labor & employment

This case involves claims by shopping center owners and developers under the federal RICO statute and related state laws alleging a scheme to defraud them in connection with redevelopment projects, along with counterclaims by defendants REC Inc. and REC LLC asserting sham litigation and tortious interference with contractual relations. The court addressed a motion to dismiss the sham litigation counterclaim and the tortious interference claims. It recognized that a sham litigation claim can be viable outside the antitrust context, including in RICO cases, as an exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity. However, the court granted the motion and dismissed those counterclaims without prejudice, holding that the pleadings consisted only of conclusory allegations that failed to satisfy federal pleading standards under Twombly by providing insufficient facts to support the required elements.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Plaintiffs Alan Diede and Mary Ann Huk sued the City of McKeesport and its police department, claiming that the demolition of a barn on their property and removal of their 1978 Mustang without predeprivation notice or hearing violated their Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights, amounted to retaliation for Huk's protected speech about historic preservation, effected an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, and involved a conspiracy to violate their civil rights. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims except the procedural due process claim concerning removal of the vehicle. After no objections were filed, the district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, denying summary judgment only as to the vehicle removal claim and granting it on the remaining claims.

civil rightsfree speechpropertyprocedure

This case involves an employment discrimination claim brought by Kathleen Kotakis against her former employer WESCO Distribution, Inc. under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Kotakis alleged that WESCO discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of sex after she was terminated shortly after being hired for a National Accounts Manager position. The court granted WESCO's motion for summary judgment, finding that Kotakis failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation or to show that the employer's legitimate reasons for termination were pretextual, as there were no material facts in dispute regarding her alleged unprofessional conduct at company events.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This is a patent infringement case in which plaintiff Ren Judkins alleges that defendant HT Window Fashions infringed his patents on single- and double-celled honeycomb window blinds, while HT denies infringement, asserts invalidity and unenforceability, seeks declaratory relief on the single-celled patent, and brings business tort counterclaims based on Judkins's customer letters. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on infringement and invalidity, and Judkins moved for judgment on the counterclaims. The court denied all motions, finding disputed issues of material fact on each issue, including the priority dates of the patents, the scope of the claims as construed, and whether prior art references qualify as invalidating.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure