This case concerns a contract dispute between KDH entities and Curtis Technology Ltd. (CTL) over the development and ownership of a T-3 sonar system under a 2006 Teaming Agreement, which escalated into nineteen counterclaims by CTL and its CEO alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, trade secret violations, and related claims against multiple KDH-affiliated parties. The counterclaim defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Channel defendants and for failure to state a claim. The court denied the personal jurisdiction motion without prejudice and granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in part and denied it in part, applying standards including the statute of limitations, gist of the action doctrine, economic loss rule, and choice of law to evaluate each count. Core reasoning focused on whether the counterclaims adequately pled facts against proper parties, avoided duplicative tort claims arising from contracts, and met pleading requirements under federal and Pennsylvania law.
In Wulf v. Bank of America, the plaintiff alleged that after his FHA mortgage was purchased by Bank of America, the bank improperly required him to increase his flood insurance coverage beyond the amount specified in the mortgage documents and federal regulations, leading to claims for breach of contract, violation of TILA, violation of Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, fraud, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the UTPCPL and fraud claims under the economic loss doctrine and incorporating the good faith claim into the contract count, while denying dismissal of the breach of contract and TILA claims. The core reasoning was that the mortgage language regarding flood insurance requirements was ambiguous and could plausibly support the plaintiff's interpretation limiting coverage to the loan balance, and that TILA disclosures might apply to the insurance demand, though the court expressed skepticism about the TILA claim's ultimate viability.
This case involves plaintiffs who paid over $14 million in ERISA withdrawal liability for a bankrupt shipping company, NPR, and sought to recover that amount from NPR's corporate affiliates and owners under theories of common control, veil piercing, and alter ego liability. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and by defendants Orchard Hill and Holt Sr. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in full. It granted the defendants' motion in part by entering judgment against the plaintiffs on their claims to pierce NPR's veil to reach Holt Sr. and to hold Orchard Hill liable as an alter ego of NPR, while denying the motion as to the remaining claims involving common control and veil piercing of Orchard Hill.
The case involves indirect purchasers of the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL suing its manufacturers Biovail and distributors GSK for allegedly conspiring to block generic versions from the U.S. market through sham litigation, seeking treble damages under federal antitrust law. After the Supreme Court's Shady Grove decision on state class action limits in federal court, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add claims under New York's Donnelly Act and the Illinois Antitrust Act. The court granted leave to add the New York claims, finding no unfair prejudice since class certification opposition had not yet been filed, but denied the Illinois claims due to state law restrictions on indirect purchaser suits and class actions that survived Shady Grove analysis. The decision applied a two-step framework examining whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 conflicts with the state statutes and whether those statutes are substantive under the Rules Enabling Act.
This case is a construction dispute arising from the building of Skirkanich Hall at the University of Pennsylvania, in which subcontractor Quinn sued architect TWBTA for incomplete plans and general contractor Skanska for unpaid contract balances, change orders, and delay damages, while Skanska cross-claimed against Quinn for project delays and against surety Harleysville on performance bonds. The court ruled on three summary judgment motions, denying Harleysville's motion on the bonds, denying Quinn's partial motion on post-October 2005 delay claims, and granting Skanska's partial motion on many of Quinn's delay, disruption, and change-order claims. The core reasoning examined the subcontract provisions granting Skanska sole control over scheduling and barring delay damages, reviewed evidence of releases and waivers in change orders, and determined that some claims were contractually precluded or lacked supporting evidence while others presented triable factual issues.
This case involves a Temple University student, Kevin Furey, who was expelled following an altercation with an off-duty police officer near campus. Furey sued the university and various employees, claiming violations including procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing process, and sought to vacate his expulsion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims except the procedural due process claim against Temple and some individual defendants, finding disputed material facts on that issue. Summary judgment was also granted for defendants who had no involvement in the expulsion process. The core reasoning was that while the Code of Conduct's procedures generally satisfied due process, factual disputes existed regarding how the process was applied in this case.