The case involved defendant William Jones, charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jones moved to suppress a Tec-9 pistol and ammunition seized from his bedroom during execution of a search warrant at 526 N. 59th Street in Philadelphia. The court granted the motion after a hearing, holding that the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause. The affidavit relied on an informant's uncorroborated statements about Jones's drug dealing that lacked any recent time frame and provided no evidence linking the residence to drug activity or connecting the firearm to any crime. The warrant therefore violated the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search of a home be supported by probable cause based on the totality of circumstances presented to the magistrate.
The case involves a court-appointed receiver for the Acorn Entities suing an accounting firm and its professionals for professional negligence in auditing, tax preparation, and bookkeeping services provided to entities later revealed to be involved in a Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated auditing standards by failing to exercise professional skepticism, verify information, or detect fraud indicators despite relying on statements controlled by the scheme's operator. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the in pari delicto doctrine barred recovery because the entities, through their managing member, were at least equally at fault. The court denied the motion, concluding that the complaint's allegations did not clearly establish the defense's applicability, including the sole actor exception, and that a full evidentiary record and further briefing were required to assess the claims.
In Volynsky v. Clinton, Russian citizen Maria Volynsky and her U.S. citizen husband challenged the State Department's unfavorable recommendation on her application for waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement tied to her J-1 visa, which led to denial of her adjustment of status by Citizenship and Immigration Services; they alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Mandamus Act, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause based on claims of arbitrary decision-making and failure to properly consider hardship factors or public interest. The district court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss. It denied dismissal of the APA claims and of the mandamus claims seeking to compel review of the regulatory factors in 22 C.F.R. § 41.63(b)(2)(ii), but dismissed the mandamus claims seeking to compel a favorable recommendation or explanation of the decision, as well as the due process claims, on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, drawing on precedents such as Chong v. Director, USIA.
This case involved a dispute between Axis Specialty Insurance Company and its insured Brickman Group over an umbrella liability policy issued to Brickman. Axis sought reimbursement of $250,000 it contributed to settle a state-court personal injury action against Brickman, arguing that Brickman had failed to exhaust its $250,000 self-insured retention before Axis's coverage applied; Brickman counterclaimed for defense costs it incurred in that action. The court granted Axis summary judgment on Brickman's defense-costs claim and granted Brickman summary judgment on Axis's reimbursement claim, denying the remainder of both cross-motions. It reasoned that the policy language and the parties' conduct during settlement negotiations did not support Axis's demand for repayment or Brickman's demand for defense expenses under Pennsylvania law.
The case centered on a dispute over authorship credit for a scientific article arising from an NIH-funded research project at Temple University, where plaintiff Giordano sued defendants Claudio and Waters for defamation, prompting counterclaims by Claudio and Waters alleging defamation by Giordano in communications about Claudio's contributions. Giordano moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim, which the court addressed by analyzing whether Giordano's statements constituted actionable mixed opinions implying undisclosed defamatory facts or were protected pure opinions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing some claims while allowing others to proceed based on the potential for liability under Pennsylvania defamation standards.
Silicon Power Corp. initiated arbitration against General Electric Zenith Controls, Inc. under the Federal Arbitration Act, alleging breaches of a Joint Development Agreement and a Sourcing and Distribution Agreement concerning the development and exclusive distribution of low-voltage static transfer switches and ultra-fast variants. The arbitrator denied all of Silicon Power's claims after hearings. Silicon Power then moved in federal district court to vacate the award, arguing errors in the arbitrator's findings on contract performance and best-efforts obligations. The court denied the motion, holding that the award was supported by evidence in the record regarding the parties' respective obligations, failures to meet development and sales targets, and the absence of any manifest disregard of New York law or other grounds for vacatur under the FAA.