Clarence Charles Newcomer

The case centered on a mural painted by the plaintiff on a building exterior in the mid-1990s that suffered water damage in 2001-2002 from defendants' roof work, which allegedly failed to prevent overflow and sealing issues. The plaintiff sued under the Visual Artists Rights Act for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work of recognized stature and under copyright law for infringement. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in full. It held that the copyright claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations that began running upon the plaintiff's discovery of damage in January 2002, with no basis for equitable tolling, while the VARA allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements for protected visual art or recognized stature.

procedureproperty

This case involved Crow Construction Company's petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc., arising from a construction project dispute in Brooklyn. The court granted the petition and vacated the award, finding evident partiality on the part of two arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitrators had failed to disclose multiple prior and concurrent professional engagements with the law firm representing the respondent, including other arbitrations and mediations, some of which were not disclosed until after the award was issued, and they had disclosed their involvement to parties in a related arbitration but not to Crow. This created an appearance of bias that undermined the fairness of the arbitrator selection process.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved The Limited, Inc. seeking declaratory judgment for coverage under a Product Tampering and Accidental Contamination Insurance Policy issued by CIGNA/ACE for losses from a voluntary recall of its Foam Burst body wash product after consumer reports of eye irritation from the aerosol dispenser. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's motion, entered judgment for the defendant, and dismissed the action. The core reasoning was that the events did not meet the policy's definition of Accidental Contamination, as there was no accidental contamination, adulteration, or pollution of a covered product resulting in bodily injury if used as intended, and no FDA finding of adulteration supported coverage. The court applied Pennsylvania insurance law to interpret the policy terms and found the claims outside the scope of coverage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Sanders v. City of Philadelphia, plaintiff Irma Sanders sued a police sergeant and the city after her arrest as a passenger in a reportedly stolen vehicle that was driving erratically, asserting federal claims of false arrest, unlawful detention, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and a Monell claim, along with related state tort claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the false arrest and unlawful detention claims, finding probable cause based on the vehicle's reported theft and the plaintiff's presence as a passenger, as well as on the Monell claim due to lack of evidence of a municipal policy or custom, and on the emotional distress claim because the conduct was not sufficiently outrageous. It denied summary judgment on the excessive force and assault and battery claims, determining that they raised factual questions for a jury, while other claims remained pending.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether a divorce judgment qualified as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) under ERISA, allowing the plaintiff to claim rights to her deceased ex-husband's 401(k) benefits that were instead paid to his new wife. The court granted motions to dismiss the ERISA claims against the plan and related defendants, ruling that the divorce judgment did not meet the statutory requirements for a QDRO because it failed to clearly specify necessary details such as the addresses of the parties. As a result, the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court directed briefing on whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

family lawlabor & employmentprocedure

Congregation Kol Ami, a Reform Jewish congregation, sought to purchase property in an R-1 residential district of Abington Township for use as a place of worship. The township's 1996 zoning ordinance prohibited houses of worship in residential districts while permitting other institutions such as municipal complexes and outdoor recreation facilities by special exception. The plaintiffs challenged the ordinance under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions, claiming violations of free exercise of religion, free speech, equal protection, and due process. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to them by the Zoning Hearing Board.

religious libertycivil rightsproperty

This ERISA case involved a labor law partner's claim for partial long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy after he developed coronary artery disease and experienced angina aggravated by work stress, leading him to reduce his hours and compensation. The insurer denied the claim, relying on its consulting physicians' opinions that work stress did not increase the risk of heart attack or death and that the plaintiff had not sufficiently altered his work. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, reasoning that the plan did not require objective medical evidence of disability, that the insurer's conflict of interest as both administrator and payor influenced its selective reliance on medical literature, and that the denial improperly disregarded the treating physician's recommendations and evidence of reduced workload.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case concerns Amtrak's federal lawsuit against NS, CSX, the Pennsylvania PUC and its commissioners, and SEPTA, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop ongoing PUC administrative proceedings on SEPTA's applications to construct mini high-level rail platforms along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. Amtrak contended that a Freight Operating Agreement's arbitration clause required NS and CSX's freight-rights claims to be resolved by a national arbitration panel rather than the PUC, and that the PUC lacked jurisdiction over interstate rail matters under federal law. Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds. The court analyzed the motions by addressing the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, the inability of an arbitration agreement to bind non-parties such as SEPTA, ripeness under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that piecemeal resolution was required and that certain claims against the PUC could not proceed.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Perlberger v. Caplan & Luber, LLP, mother and daughter plaintiffs sued their former attorneys and law firm, alleging a scheme to overbill them through fraudulent representations and actions during representation in an underlying RICO case stemming from divorce proceedings. The claims included RICO violations based on mail and wire fraud, as well as state-law claims for fraud, legal malpractice, emotional distress, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the pro se complaint must be liberally construed and that it sufficiently alleged the elements of a RICO claim with particularity despite involving an attorney-client fee dispute. The court rejected arguments about insufficient service of process and lack of particularity in pleading, noting that the defendants had notice of the charges and that garden-variety fraud can support a RICO claim.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

Lucabaugh appealed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his adversary proceeding against the IRS and its counsel. The proceeding alleged violations of the automatic stay from an attempt to file a motion in tax court and sought FOIA disclosures. The bankruptcy court dismissed on grounds of res judicata for claims against counsel, failure to state a claim as no stay violation occurred and no damages alleged, and lack of jurisdiction over FOIA matters. The district court affirmed, finding the prior dismissal binding, no actual violation or harm, and no bankruptcy-related jurisdiction for the FOIA requests.

taxesprocedure

This case was a consolidated class action brought by purchasers of YBM Magnex International Inc. stock, alleging violations of federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act) as well as state negligent misrepresentation claims. Plaintiffs claimed that YBM operated as a front for Russian organized crime money laundering rather than a legitimate magnet manufacturer. After earlier proceedings and the addition of new Canadian defendants, along with related Canadian receivership and bankruptcy matters, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action on grounds of international comity. The court reasoned that new developments had made the case overwhelmingly dominated by Canadian interests and issues, that Canada had a greater stake than the United States, that dismissal would not prejudice U.S. interests, and that the action would duplicate ongoing Canadian proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which an insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify a nightclub owner in a pending state-court personal injury action alleging that employees committed an assault and battery on patrons. The district court granted the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment in its favor. Under Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that an insurer's duty to defend turns on whether the underlying complaint's allegations potentially fall within policy coverage; here, the claims—though framed in part as negligence—arose out of an assault and battery and were expressly excluded by the policy's clear assault-and-battery/negligent-hiring provision, so no duty to defend or indemnify existed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Today's Child Learning Centers, Inc. seeking a refund of $18,152.56 in taxes levied by the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, asserting the levy was wrongful because it was a distinct entity from Wee Care Academy For Children, Inc., which had unpaid federal employment taxes. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the United States, holding that Today's Child was the alter ego and successor in interest to Wee Care. The court based this on findings that the entities shared the same premises, president Patricia Rota, employees, day care operations, phone numbers, curriculum, and bank accounts, with Today's Child assuming Wee Care's lease and business without any provision to pay the outstanding taxes, making the entities substantively identical despite the name change.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the IRS seeking to enforce administrative summonses issued to OMT Supermarket, Inc. and Middletown Supermarket, Inc. as part of an examination into the taxpayers' unreported income from coupon fraud for tax years 1990-1995. The defendants moved to dismiss the enforcement complaints, arguing that grand jury subpoenas had already produced related documents, that disclosure would violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and that a Justice Department referral barred the summonses under 26 U.S.C. § 7602. The court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered enforcement, finding that the IRS had established a legitimate purpose under § 7602, that no Justice Department referral existed, and that the defendants failed to submit required affidavits or evidence to support their claims. The summonses sought information not already in the IRS's possession, and any overlap with prior grand jury materials did not prevent enforcement.

taxescriminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a commercial dispute between Factory Market, Inc. (FMI), which held a leasehold interest in a building, and Schuller International Inc., the designer and guarantor of an EPDM roofing system installed on that building. FMI alleged ongoing leaks caused by defects in the roof, Schuller's refusal to transfer the original guarantee, and inadequate repairs following a prior settlement, bringing claims including fraud, negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. The court addressed Schuller's motion for partial summary judgment and granted it in part while denying it in part. It dismissed the fraud count and certain tort-based claims, applying the economic loss doctrine to hold that damage to the roofing system itself is properly addressed under contract and warranty law rather than tort, but allowed other claims to proceed.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Pennsylvania smokers who began smoking before age 19 suing major tobacco companies to establish a court-supervised medical monitoring program due to alleged health risks from hazardous substances in cigarettes. After class certification was denied on their original multi-count complaint, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting only a medical monitoring claim. The court addressed multiple defense motions for summary judgment and granted the motion based on the statute of limitations as to five of the six plaintiffs, finding that their knowledge of the connection between smoking and disease—gained from warning labels and other sources—meant their claims accrued more than two years before suit was filed. The opinion also discusses the relevance of plaintiffs' post-warning knowledge to defenses such as contributory negligence and assumption of risk under Pennsylvania law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., plaintiffs representing a class of one to two million Pennsylvania smokers sued cigarette manufacturers seeking a court-supervised medical monitoring fund to cover increased health risks from smoking, asserting a single claim for medical monitoring and requesting a jury trial. The defendants moved to enforce their own jury demands, arguing the claim involved legal rights and remedies. The court granted the motion, holding that the Seventh Amendment entitled the parties to a jury trial. It reached this conclusion by comparing the claim to an 18th-century negligence action for future medical expenses (an action at law) and noting that the requested relief was monetary, making the second prong of the analysis favor a legal characterization.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved veterinarian Leonard Patrick, who was indicted on one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud by killing a racehorse owned by an associate to collect insurance proceeds, along with three counts of making false statements to a federal grand jury about his involvement. After a jury trial resulted in convictions, Patrick filed post-verdict motions under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29, 33, and 34 seeking acquittal, arrest of judgment, or a new trial, primarily citing an undisclosed conflict of interest by his defense counsel stemming from the firm's prior representation of a key government witness (another veterinarian whom Patrick allegedly sought to frame) and related Brady/Giglio disclosure issues. The court denied the motions for acquittal and arrest of judgment but granted a new trial, reasoning that the conflict created a serious potential for divided loyalties that was not adequately addressed through waiver or otherwise, and that undisclosed materials from prior civil litigation and government files were material to the defense's ability to cross-examine witnesses and present its case. The decision rested on analysis of the attorney's prior knowledge and files, the government's failure to disclose certain documents, and the impact on the fairness of the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a follow-up lawsuit by plaintiff Lincoln Herbert, a former Temple University Law School student, against the university, its law school, and Dean Robert Reinstein, arising from his 1994 suspension after a pepper gas incident and related disciplinary proceedings. In his prior related action, Herbert had raised due process and First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but ultimately lost on the merits after trial, with partial reversal on appeal regarding initial notice. In this amended complaint, Herbert sought to relitigate similar issues and add claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1232h. The court denied defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions, finding the claims not entirely frivolous, but granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because the statute of limitations had expired, res judicata and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of previously decided issues, and § 1232h provided no private cause of action applicable to the facts.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involved a former Hallmark field sales employee who retired in February 1995 after receiving a standard severance package and inquiring whether he should delay retirement for potential future changes; shortly afterward, the company developed and offered an enhanced Voluntary Severance Pay Plan to eligible employees as part of a restructuring. The plaintiff sued under ERISA, alleging he was entitled to the enhanced benefits, that defendants breached fiduciary duties by misrepresenting or failing to disclose the plan's development, and related claims. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendants on all counts. It reasoned that the plaintiff was not a plan participant because the Voluntary Plan had not been conceived at the time of his retirement, that no fiduciary duty was breached since the plan was not under consideration during his pre-retirement discussions, and that ERISA preempted any state-law misrepresentation claims.

labor & employment