Berle M. Schiller

The case involved a dog rescue organization alleging that state Dog Law officials and local Marcus Hook authorities harassed its members, improperly seized dogs and documents during a 2010 transport, issued citations, and retaliated after the group sued to recover the animals, raising constitutional challenges to the Pennsylvania Dog Law along with federal civil rights and state tort claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in full. It reasoned that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred claims against state defendants, the plaintiff lacked standing for many allegations, the complaint violated pleading requirements, and remaining claims failed to identify sufficient Fourth Amendment or other constitutional violations to support the § 1983 and related causes of action.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

Rohm and Haas Company terminated employee Greg Sailor for alleged threatening and harassing comments toward a supervisor, prompting the Union to file a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement that required just cause for discharge. The arbitrator found that the comments were inappropriate but did not constitute threats of violence or justify termination, reducing the penalty to a sixty-day suspension. Rohm and Haas sued to vacate the award while the Union counterclaimed to confirm it, and the district court granted summary judgment to the Union. The court reasoned that the arbitrator's decision drew its essence from the CBA and did not violate well-defined public policies against workplace violence or discrimination, as the remarks were isolated and not shown to create a hostile environment under Title VII or similar laws.

labor & employment

In this bankruptcy appeal, creditor Amrit Lai argued that his pre-petition judgment for unpaid rent created a lien on debtor John Lownes’s mobile home that should have survived the Chapter 7 discharge and not been avoided. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders denying Lai’s objections to exemptions and motions for reconsideration. The court reasoned that the mobile home was personal property, as listed in the debtor’s schedules and supported by the record, rather than real property capable of supporting a judicial lien that would pass through bankruptcy; Lai presented no evidence to the contrary. The court also rejected claims that the debtor failed to satisfy credit-counseling requirements or that Lai lacked proper notice, finding the certificates of counseling and education sufficient and the record showing Lai’s participation in the creditors’ meeting.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Terrance Lewis, convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder and related charges arising from a 1996 robbery and shooting in Philadelphia and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. New witness testimony and other evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing indicated that Lewis may not have been present or participated in the crime, raising a claim of actual innocence, but the district court approved the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the petition. The court reasoned that AEDPA's deferential standards, combined with the procedural history of Lewis's unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings, barred relief, and that no clearly established Supreme Court precedent permits habeas relief based solely on actual innocence. A certificate of appealability was granted only on one specified ground and denied on the others.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Savage, the government charged defendant Clifton Savage, a convicted felon, with unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after Philadelphia police recovered a gun from his pocket while responding to a 911 call from a woman reporting that a man was banging on her apartment door with a weapon. Savage moved to suppress both the firearm and his statement admitting to possessing it, claiming that the officers' encounter amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that his statement was obtained in violation of Miranda under the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion in full after a hearing, concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Savage based on the reliable, non-anonymous tip and their immediate observations, that the initial questioning in the hallway did not constitute a seizure, and that Miranda did not apply because Savage was not in custody during the brief encounter or, in the alternative, because the public safety exception permitted the questions. The court further noted that the officers' actions were limited and consensual until Savage confirmed he had a gun, at which point they lawfully secured the weapon.

criminal lawproceduregunscivil rights

The case involved an eighteen-year-old student with severe hearing loss who had attended Strath Haven High School in the Wallingford Swarthmore School District for several years under an IEP providing specialized support, despite living in a different district. After multiple physical altercations led to suspensions and a proposed forty-five-day placement at an alternative school, the student's mother filed for a temporary restraining order claiming violation of the IDEA's stay-put provision. The court granted the motion and ordered that the student remain at Strath Haven pending administrative proceedings. The reasoning centered on the IDEA's requirement that a child stay in his or her current educational placement during due process disputes, with the district treated as responsible for the placement despite residency issues.

civil rightsfederal power

William Spillane sued AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and others in state court, alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, bad faith, and unfair trade practices after the insurer discontinued disability insurance payments. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that the policy was part of an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan and thus presented a federal question. Following discovery limited to ERISA applicability, the court denied Spillane's motion to remand, concluding that the employer's advances on premium payments constituted contributions that placed the plan outside the safe harbor exemption from ERISA coverage.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

The case involved a motion in limine in a federal prosecution of Donald Monaghan, a SEPTA employee, for honest services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346, based on his alleged receipt of undisclosed award certificates from a vendor over several years. The government sought to introduce expert testimony from John J. Contino on Pennsylvania ethics laws, their legislative history, the role of the State Ethics Commission, and opinions on whether the charged conduct violated the Ethics Act. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, permitting only testimony on how the ethics laws are publicized to SEPTA employees as relevant to intent, while excluding all other proposed topics because they concerned legal interpretation reserved for the court or were irrelevant. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards for expert testimony, the requirement that experts not opine on ultimate legal issues or mens rea, and the elements of the federal fraud charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Thomas Root, a former attorney employed at Reading Broadcasting, Inc., who was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax evasion after commissions on airtime sales were redirected to an LLC he created, without issuance of Form 1099s or inclusion on his W-2 forms, thereby concealing the income from the IRS. Root moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, venue, and other aspects of the prosecution. The court denied the motions, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government was sufficient to support the jury's findings of an agreement to conceal income and affirmative acts of evasion over multiple years.

criminal lawtaxes

The case involved plaintiff Gary Pineda, an Hispanic male of Puerto Rican origin, suing his former employer Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. (and its successor), its parent company, and his supervisor for race and national origin discrimination as well as a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Plaintiff alleged that after a 2003 reorganization and change in supervisors, he was subjected to discriminatory comments, had accounts reassigned to Caucasian employees, faced unwarranted performance criticism, and was ultimately placed on probation and terminated. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although the plaintiff did not respond to the motion, the court reviewed the record and found no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, as the supervisor's actions were supported by legitimate performance concerns and the alleged remarks did not demonstrate pretext or severe pervasive harassment.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved plaintiff Edward Mack, who alleged that after a tow truck dispatched by AAA refused to transport him and his white fiancé due to his race, he was forced to walk on icy sidewalks and slipped and fell, sustaining injuries. Mack brought claims for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against AAA and Kelly’s Texaco & Towing, along with negligence claims against those defendants and the owners and lessees of the abutting property. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the action in full. It concluded that Mack failed to present evidence creating a triable issue on the § 1981 claim and that no defendant’s conduct was a legal cause of his fall; it further held that the property owners and lessees owed no duty under Pennsylvania’s hills-and-ridges doctrine given the undisputed icy conditions.

civil rightstorts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the Melrose Hotel Company seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, had a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act due to unsolicited fax advertisements. After St. Paul denied coverage following an initial reservation of rights, Melrose settled the underlying suit and filed this action. The court granted summary judgment in favor of St. Paul and denied Melrose's motion, concluding that the policy's advertising injury coverage did not apply because the faxes were sent to businesses and did not make known material violating an individual's right to privacy, while the property damage coverage was inapplicable as the conduct was not an accident causing physical damage or loss of use of tangible property.

business & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by a community coalition and residents against Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County Planning Commission, SEPTA, and the FTA over a proposed redevelopment project in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, the Department of Transportation Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Pennsylvania's Urban Redevelopment Law, and constitutional protections against takings and due process violations, seeking to require environmental and historic reviews before the project advanced with federal funds. The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the claims were not ripe because the project was still in early planning stages with no final agency action having occurred.

environmentfederal powerprocedureproperty

Krenar Hoxha, a naturalized U.S. citizen, sought a writ of habeas corpus to block his extradition to Albania for trial on charges of murdering three people. The district court denied the petition after reviewing the magistrate judge's certification of extraditability under the longstanding U.S.-Albania extradition treaty. The court concluded that probable cause existed based on Albanian evidence such as witness accounts, a recovered weapon, and ballistics matches, and that Hoxha's challenges to the credibility or sufficiency of that evidence were not properly raised in U.S. habeas proceedings. Procedural defects in Hoxha's prior in absentia Albanian proceedings were deemed cured or irrelevant to the extradition decision, and potential human rights concerns were left to the State Department's discretion.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves Jocelyn Rios seeking judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of child Supplemental Security Income benefits for her minor son, who alleged disability due to ADHD and related mental health conditions. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part, denied the defendant's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's analysis of the child's functioning was incomplete, particularly regarding potential marked limitations in domains such as attending and completing tasks, and required clarification to determine eligibility under the relevant regulations.

healthcarefederal power

This case arose from a 2000 plane crash in Pennsylvania that killed two men, allegedly due to failure of an engine manufactured by the Austrian company Rotax, which was at the time a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian company Bombardier. Plaintiffs sued Rotax and Bombardier in federal court in Pennsylvania, prompting Rotax to move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Bombardier to move for summary judgment. The court held that it lacked specific jurisdiction over Rotax based on its direct contacts with Pennsylvania and also lacked general jurisdiction, but found alter ego jurisdiction sufficient because Rotax and Bombardier were functional equivalents with Bombardier exercising control over the engine at issue. The court therefore denied both motions, allowing the claims against Rotax to proceed in Pennsylvania while granting summary judgment to a separate Bombardier entity that plaintiffs agreed to dismiss.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs who authored and published books containing photographs of fabric patterns suing defendants for copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, DMCA claims, and state-law unjust enrichment and unfair competition after defendants included some of those photographs in their book 1000 Patterns. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in full and granted defendants' motion in part by dismissing the non-copyright claims while denying it as to the copyright and DMCA claims. The core reasoning was that the case presented numerous disputed issues of material fact, especially concerning the originality of the photographs and validity of the copyrights, which precluded summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Theophalis Wilson challenging his Pennsylvania convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and violating the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act (PCOA). The petition claimed that Wilson's appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a new Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, Commonwealth v. Besch, which held that PCOA requires proof of involvement in a legitimate enterprise rather than a criminal gang. The district court granted the petition, vacated the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that counsel's omission met the Strickland standard for deficient performance and prejudice because Besch would have applied to Wilson's case. The court also determined that any procedural defaults did not bar relief, as enforcing them would result in a miscarriage of justice given the change in law during the direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against Sears & Roebuck, in which a jury awarded $1,000 in actual damages but no punitive damages after trial. Plaintiff then moved for an award of over $126,000 in attorney's fees and about $14,000 in costs under the FCRA's fee-shifting provision. The court applied the lodestar method, assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours worked against market standards and the limited degree of success achieved, then reduced the requested amounts for excessive preparation time, associate-level tasks performed by partners, and other inefficiencies before granting the motion in part and denying it in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Barrington Elijah Murray, a Jamaican citizen and lawful permanent resident, who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a final order of removal from the United States based on his 1998 state convictions for manufacturing/delivering a controlled substance and possessing a controlled substance. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals found him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled substance conviction and under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an aggravated felon. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the record of conviction, including the criminal complaint detailing an unlawful sale of marijuana, established an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), and that Murray's due process rights were not violated because the government met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. The court also noted that Murray did not contest removability on the controlled substance ground but challenged only the aggravated felony classification due to its impact on future admissibility.

immigrationcriminal law