Eduardo C. Robreno

This case involved a plaintiff's products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims under Pennsylvania law against Medtronic concerning its MMT-522 Paradigm insulin pump and glucose monitoring system, a Class III medical device that received FDA premarket approval. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims except the breach of express warranty claim. The core reasoning was that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 expressly preempt state-law claims that impose requirements different from or in addition to federal ones applicable to PMA-approved devices, and the remaining claims either failed to identify parallel federal requirements or did not satisfy the summary judgment standard on issues such as manufacturing defects and failure to warn.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case is a slip-and-fall negligence action brought by plaintiff Marion Felix against grocery store operator GMS, Zallie Holdings, Inc. and bottler Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Company after she fell on a puddle of clear liquid in a frozen-food aisle at a ShopRite in Philadelphia. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, contending there was no evidence they had actual or constructive notice of the hazard or that Canada Dry created it. The court granted the motions under Pennsylvania premises-liability law, holding that the record contained insufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could find notice or causation, including the lack of evidence about how long the liquid had been present or its source. The court applied the summary-judgment standard requiring the non-moving party to show a genuine issue of material fact and found the plaintiff had not done so.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved pro se petitioners who sought to vacate a FINRA arbitration award against E*Trade Securities under the Federal Arbitration Act, claiming the brokerage failed to execute stock trades properly and that the arbitration panel committed procedural errors. After the petitioners encountered repeated difficulties serving E*Trade despite its awareness of the filing, the court entered a default against the company. On E*Trade's motion to set aside the default, the court granted the motion but ordered E*Trade to pay the petitioners' costs and expenses of service plus a $10,000 sanction to the court, based on findings that E*Trade had engaged in dilatory conduct and failed to cooperate with service efforts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved parents of a student with Prader-Willi Syndrome and other disabilities who sued Nazareth Area School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the district denied their child a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide adequate physical therapy, sensory occupational therapy, executive functioning services, and transition planning, and seeking compensatory education. The court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record following a due process hearing where the hearing officer had ruled in the district's favor. The court granted the district's motion, denied the parents' motion, and affirmed the hearing officer's decision, finding no denial of FAPE because the district had appropriately provided or offered the required services, transition plans were individualized and effective, any delays in services were not attributable to the district, and the administrative findings were supported by the record. The decision rested on deference to the hearing officer's evaluation of evidence, including progress reports and IEP documentation showing the student made meaningful educational gains.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether a physician's assistant employed by Crozer-Chester Medical Center qualified for the Fair Labor Standards Act's bona fide professional exemption from overtime pay. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that his license to practice medicine only under physician supervision did not meet the requirements of the Department of Labor regulations interpreting the exemption. On the defendant's motion for reconsideration, the court examined the specific facts of the plaintiff's employment, job duties, licensing, and the text of the relevant regulations from both 1973 and 2004 versions, concluding that the plaintiff was not exempt and was entitled to overtime compensation. The court denied the motion, finding no clear error of law or manifest injustice, and also declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves plaintiff Richard Nolan's claims against his former employer Arkema, Inc. for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act after his termination in 2007 following a medical leave for intermittent explosive disorder and other conditions. Nolan alleged that Arkema failed to accommodate his restrictions, filled his shift supervisor position while he was out, and terminated him rather than allowing his return to work. The court denied Arkema's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Nolan was disabled under the statutes, whether he was qualified for his position with or without reasonable accommodation, and whether Arkema's stated reasons for termination were pretextual, including evidence of a potential "100% healed" policy that could support a finding of discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a lawsuit by William and Carol Curtis against several brake manufacturers, alleging that Mr. Curtis developed lung cancer due to asbestos exposure while working as a parts clerk handling brake components at an auto dealership from 1960 to 1967. The defendants, suppliers of asbestos-containing brake parts to Chrysler, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not identify exposure to their specific products. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motions, concluding that under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiffs failed to show that Mr. Curtis was exposed to any particular defendant's product on a frequent and regular basis in close proximity. The court reasoned that the interchangeable nature of the Mopar brakes made it impossible to determine exposure without impermissible speculation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between Centennial School District and the parents of student Matthew L. over whether Matthew, who has ADHD, was eligible for accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court partially upheld the hearing officers' findings that Matthew was eligible for Section 504 services prior to starting medication in January 2007, but reversed the eligibility determination after he began medication because his impairment no longer substantially limited his major life activities. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if Matthew was denied a free appropriate public education during the eligible period and what compensatory education, if any, should be awarded.

civil rights

In this case, plaintiff Bruce Rogers brought a qui tam action against defendant Tristar Products, Inc., alleging that the company falsely marked its Power Juicer products as patented in violation of the False Marking Statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, by referencing nonexistent U.S. patents on functional aspects like juice extraction when it only held a Chinese design patent. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing both that the complaint failed to state a claim and that the statute's qui tam enforcement provision allowing any person to sue for penalties was unconstitutional under Article II. The court held that the complaint adequately stated a claim but concluded that the qui tam provision violated the Take Care Clause because it authorized private relators to prosecute a criminal statute with insufficient executive branch control or oversight. As a result, the court granted the motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved plaintiffs suing multiple defendants in Pennsylvania state court for injuries from asbestos exposure after one plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Defendant Allentown Cement Company removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a state court granted summary judgment dismissing the last non-diverse defendant. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that removal was improper because only a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, not an involuntary dismissal via court order, can make a case removable under the voluntary/involuntary rule. The court analyzed the rule's application in the Third Circuit, noting that district courts consistently require a plaintiff's voluntary act for removal to be proper and that the purpose is to respect the plaintiff's forum choice and avoid jurisdictional complications from appeals. It concluded that the involuntary dismissal here did not trigger removability.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved El Bor Corporation, owner of the Juniata Fitness gym, suing Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith under Pennsylvania law after the insurer denied a claim for roof damage allegedly caused by wind, rain, and ice. The plaintiff had arranged for a public adjuster to submit the claim months after noticing ceiling stains, with the adjuster estimating repairs based on a selected loss date. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim but denied it on the breach of contract claim. On bad faith, the court held that the insurer's investigation provided a reasonable basis for denial and no evidence showed reckless disregard of that basis. On the contract claim, factual disputes remained over policy exclusions such as wear and tear or poor maintenance, the timeliness of notice, and mitigation efforts.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a plaintiff's asbestos-related personal injury claims against Volkswagen and other defendants in multidistrict litigation, where the plaintiff had been diagnosed with lung cancer in 1985 but sued in 2006 and was later diagnosed with asbestosis in 2003. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendant on statute of limitations grounds under Mississippi law, treating the motion as unopposed. On reconsideration, the court held that Mississippi follows the two-disease rule, under which lung cancer and asbestosis are separate and distinct injuries with independent statutes of limitations that begin to run upon diagnosis of each condition. The court therefore treated the prior ruling as a partial summary judgment dismissing only the lung cancer claims as time-barred while allowing the asbestosis claims to proceed, as they were filed within three years of that diagnosis.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this patent infringement case, plaintiff Tyco Fire Products sued defendant Victaulic for allegedly infringing two patents related to fire sprinkler systems. Defendant's answer included affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserting that the patents were invalid and/or unenforceable under various sections of Title 35. Plaintiff moved to strike the relevant affirmative defense under Rule 12(f) and to dismiss the counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the pleadings failed to meet the standards from Twombly and Iqbal. The court held that Twombly and Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses, so the defense was sufficient (though its redundant portion was stricken), while the counterclaim was dismissed for failing to plead plausibly under those cases. The decision rested on distinctions between the pleading requirements for defenses versus claims, along with the observation that patent local rules cannot alter national pleading standards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Marcavage v. City of Philadelphia, plaintiff Michael Marcavage brought a § 1983 action against the City and police officers alleging violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Protection Act, based on officers interfering with his open-air evangelical Christian preaching on public streets during permitted events. The plaintiff claimed the officers separated him from counter-protesters and used excessive force in one incident. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts and denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the First Amendment claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish a municipal custom or policy of deliberate indifference, did not demonstrate that individual officers violated his constitutional rights, and that qualified immunity applied to the officers, while the state law claim was abandoned.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved a wrongful death claim brought by the estate of Orvin Kiser, Sr., who was diagnosed with nonmalignant asbestos-related conditions in 1988, filed a prior lawsuit, and later developed mesothelioma before his death in 2010. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Virginia law treats all asbestos-related diseases as a single indivisible cause of action, so the statute of limitations began running with the 1988 diagnosis and barred the 2010 suit. The plaintiff countered that a 1985 amendment to Virginia Code § 8.01-249(4) adopted the separate disease rule, starting a new limitations period upon the mesothelioma diagnosis. Applying Erie and Virginia substantive law, the court examined whether the amendment overruled prior precedent like Joyce v. AC & S, Inc., which had endorsed the indivisible theory, and reviewed the statute's text and history to determine the accrual rule for the claims.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement and breach of contract action in which Frontline Placement Technologies sued CRS over CRS's SubFinder system, alleging infringement of two patents ('151 and '519) covering technology that lets organizations post worker absences online or by phone so substitutes can search and accept positions, plus claims that CRS breached a prior licensing agreement. The court conducted claim construction for the disputed patent terms asserted by Frontline. It adopted constructions for several terms, including "automatically securing, in response to the receiving a response accepting step" and "computer readable medium," while ruling that no construction was needed for other terms such as "substitute fulfillment," "performing substitute fulfillment," and "substitute fulfillment system."

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P., a former tenant sued his apartment management company (L.P.) and a debt collection and consumer reporting agency (FCO) over alleged improper collection efforts and credit reporting following a lease dispute involving unpaid balances and a security deposit. The complaint asserted claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (against FCO only), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and several Pennsylvania consumer protection and debt collection statutes. On motions to dismiss, the court granted FCO's motion as to one state-law count but denied it as to the rest, and granted L.P.'s motion as to the FDCPA and one state count but denied it as to the remaining claims. The court reasoned that, accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the plaintiff had sufficiently stated plausible claims under the relevant statutes for most counts, while certain claims failed as a matter of law or pleading.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., users of the virtual world Second Life brought contract and tort claims against Linden Research and its founder, alleging that the company unlawfully confiscated their virtual property after promising to protect participants' rights to buy, sell, and own such assets. The defendants moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing that a forum selection clause in the updated Terms of Service required any suit to be filed in the Northern District of California. The court held that the clause was valid and enforceable under federal law, as plaintiffs failed to show it was procured by fraud or would deprive them of their day in court, and distinguished it from an earlier unconscionable arbitration clause in a similar case. Accordingly, the court granted the motion in part and transferred the action to the Northern District of California.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by Dianne Reibstein against Rite Aid Corporation and Asteres, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended by FACTA, for failing to truncate credit and debit card information on electronic receipts provided at the point of sale. The parties reached a settlement agreement that provided class members with gift cards valued based on the number of qualifying transactions, along with attorneys' fees and a proposed representative award for the named plaintiff. The court certified the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 after finding that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b) were satisfied. Applying the Girsh and Prudential factors, the court determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, though it reduced the plaintiff's individual award due to its size relative to the statutory maximum and her limited involvement in the case. The court granted the motion for attorneys' fees as requested.

business & regulatoryprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a real estate agent suing a township and its code enforcement director after the township initiated but later dismissed a civil action against him for violating a local ordinance requiring a certificate of occupancy before selling property. The plaintiff alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims of failure to train, abuse of process, and related state law torts, seeking damages for stress and costs incurred in defending the suit. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no substantive or procedural due process violation because the township's actions were not arbitrary or egregious and did not infringe on a protected liberty or property interest, and the plaintiff failed to establish any constitutional right against being improperly sued. The state law claims were similarly dismissed for lack of supporting evidence or legal basis.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability