William Lloyd Standish

In this case, plaintiff Jamie Lichtenstein alleged that her termination from UPMC Braddock violated the Family and Medical Leave Act after she requested leave to care for her seriously ill mother. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the termination resulted from her repeated attendance violations, tardiness, and scheduling demands rather than any FMLA-protected activity. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both counts of the amended complaint. It found insufficient evidence that the decision was motivated by the leave request, noting that supervisors had documented concerns about her reliability well before the request and that her pattern of absences exceeded policy limits. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting claims of FMLA interference or retaliation.

labor & employmentfamily lawhealthcare

The case involves plaintiff David E. Pounds challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, based on claims of disability due to learning disabilities, low IQ, depression, bipolar disorder, and related behavioral and functional limitations. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and reviewed the administrative record, including medical opinions, psychological evaluations, and vocational expert testimony regarding possible jobs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to the extent it sought remand for further consideration by the Commissioner and denied the defendant's motion. The core reasoning centered on deficiencies in the ALJ's evaluation of medical evidence, such as incomplete or biased summaries of treatment records from providers like Dr. Matta and Dr. Kolli, inconsistencies in assessing the plaintiff's mental impairments and work-related limitations, and issues with the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert.

healthcarefederal power

The case concerned a dispute following an asset purchase agreement in which Partners Coffee acquired Oceana's coffee business assets, leading to mutual claims of breaches, misrepresentations about equipment and finances, and violations of a related consulting agreement. Oceana and Mrs. Gilson asserted counterclaims including breach of the APA, breach of the consulting agreement, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and veil piercing. The court ruled on Partners' motion to dismiss, granting it in part by dismissing the APA breach claim regarding Mrs. Gilson's employment for lack of any contractual duty and addressing the applicability of the economic loss doctrine to the fraud and misrepresentation claims under Pennsylvania law, while denying dismissal as to the remaining counterclaims that were adequately pled.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Lewis v. Ford Motor Co., plaintiffs filed a class action in Pennsylvania state court alleging that Ford violated warranty provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act and the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law due to defects in certain vehicles. Ford removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) based on diversity, class size, and amount in controversy. After the district court denied class certification on grounds including lack of commonality and predominance, plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that CAFA jurisdiction required a certified class or that the amount in controversy could no longer be met. The court denied the renewed motion to remand, concluding that CAFA jurisdiction is determined at removal and continues regardless of later denial of certification. The ruling relied on the statute's text, Third Circuit precedent, and rejection of contrary authority from other circuits.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Mario Luther, who applied to become a Kia vehicle franchisee after providing confidential business and financial information as requested by Kia representatives. Luther signed a Kia application form that explicitly stated the document created no obligation on Kia's part to approve the application, that Kia could accept or reject it in its sole discretion, and that only a written dealer agreement signed by a Kia executive officer would constitute approval. After regional-level discussions in which Luther was told he was the proposed candidate, national-level approval was not granted, and Luther sued Kia after incurring expenses in anticipation of the franchise. The court granted Kia's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the clear disclaimers in the application and the absence of any express promise or authority to bind Kia precluded claims such as promissory estoppel or breach of contract.

business & regulatory

This case involves a contract dispute in which Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. (PLS), a Pennsylvania freight brokerage firm, sued C.R. England, Inc., a Utah-based company, for breach of an implied-in-fact contract after England failed to pay over $82,000 on 40 invoices for shipping services arranged for several customers. England moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania suit under the first-filed doctrine or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties, or alternatively to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan, where England had filed an earlier declaratory judgment action involving the same transactions. The court denied the motion to dismiss in full, finding no basis for dismissal on joinder or first-filed grounds at that stage, but stayed the entire case, including any venue decision, pending resolution of PLS's motion to dismiss in the Michigan action to avoid duplicative litigation between the same parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit filed by Jeanne Phillips, administratrix of her son Mark Phillips's estate, against Northwest Regional Communications (a 911 dispatch agency), its employees, and related parties. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in permitting former employee Michael Michalski to access confidential databases to locate and murder Mark Phillips, his ex-girlfriend Gretchen Ferderbar, and her sister, thereby violating Phillips's due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. More than four years after the October 2003 killings, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims failed under the state-created danger theory because the defendants' conduct did not shock the conscience, there was no special relationship imposing a duty to protect, and no municipal policy or custom was shown to have caused the harm.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a putative class action filed by plaintiffs Timothy Lewis and Timothy Trapuzzano in Pennsylvania state court against Ford Motor Company, alleging that 2005-2007 Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks had a front-end suspension defect causing dangerous oscillation; the claims asserted breaches of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, seeking injunctive relief for repairs, damages, disgorgement, and fees. Ford removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting over 100 class members, minimal diversity, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, and also moved to dismiss; plaintiffs then moved to remand, arguing insufficient proof of CAFA jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to remand, finding that Ford had met its burden to show the CAFA criteria were satisfied based on evidence of potential repair costs for the class vehicles exceeding the jurisdictional threshold, and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to allow further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Pennsylvania-based plaintiff Nationwide Contractor Audit Service sued Kansas-based defendant National Compliance Management Services for tortious interference with contract and unfair competition, alleging that the defendant's president falsely told a potential client that a former employee remained bound by a non-compete agreement. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion after finding insufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to support either specific or general jurisdiction, including limited website interactions, a small number of phone and email contacts, and no purposeful targeting of the forum state, but exercised its discretion to transfer the matter to the District of Kansas.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned Elizabeth J. Lamanna, a former FBI employee insured under an ERISA-governed long-term disability plan administered by SAMBA. After receiving benefits from 1996 to 2004 due to medical issues including fibromyalgia, SAMBA terminated the benefits in 2005 on the ground that she could perform other gainful work, and upheld the denial on appeal. Lamanna sued under ERISA for reinstatement of benefits. The court granted Lamanna's motion for summary judgment and denied SAMBA's cross-motion, concluding after review of the administrative record that the termination was not justified under the plan terms.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a proposed class action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, in which plaintiff Karen Kahrer alleged that Ameriquest Mortgage Company engaged in an illegal referral arrangement by conditioning approval of her mortgage refinance loan on using proceeds to pay off a prior debt to Sears, in exchange for a referral from Sears' agent. Ameriquest moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not allege she was overcharged or suffered any actual injury from the settlement services. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion, and the district court adopted that recommendation as its opinion, holding that RESPA's prohibition on referral fees or things of value applies even without proof of overcharge or specific damages, consistent with the statute's text, 1983 amendments, and legislative history. The court found that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim by alleging the conditional payoff constituted an improper thing of value exchanged for the referral.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned Osiris Enterprises and its owner suing the Borough of Whitehall and council members after the borough extended bidding deadlines for a storm sewer reconstruction project, awarded the contract to a higher bidder whose pre-qualification certificate had expired, and declared Osiris a non-responsible bidder ineligible for future municipal work based on a prior settled dispute. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under Section 1983 and RICO, along with state-law claims, arising from the August 2001 debarment decision. The court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and granted defendants' cross-motion, holding that res judicata from earlier state-court actions barred relitigation of the core issues regarding the borough's bidding procedures and Osiris's bidder status.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves William Sollon, a former Ohio Casualty employee, who sued Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Hartford Life Insurance Company after his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan were terminated. Sollon had received benefits starting in 2000 based on cardiac conditions but Hartford ended them retroactively in 2001 following an investigation that included surveillance video of him playing golf, which conflicted with his claimed total disability. The court granted Ohio Casualty's motion for summary judgment in full, finding it had no role in the benefits decision, and granted Hartford's motion in part while remanding the case for further review of the denial process and medical evidence under ERISA standards.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Laborers Combined Funds sued defendant Todd J. Cioppa, the sole shareholder and officer of American Standard Environmental, Inc., under ERISA and state conversion law for failing to remit required payments to union pension, welfare, and advancement funds, as well as withheld union dues, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The undisputed facts showed that Cioppa had sole authority over payments and company funds but did not submit the required monthly remittances over an extended period. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion, holding that the delinquent contributions constituted plan assets under ERISA trust agreements, that Cioppa exercised control over them as a fiduciary, and that he breached his duties by diverting the funds. The decision relied on the terms of the labor and trust agreements vesting title in the funds, ERISA's definition of fiduciary functions, and precedents treating such delinquencies as breaches.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this admiralty case, barge owners J.A.R. Barge Lines and Mon River Towing sought exoneration from or limitation of liability under federal maritime law after employee Mark Allen Smith suffered a severe leg injury while working on a barge, leading to amputation; Smith responded with claims of negligence, gross negligence, and unseaworthiness, seeking compensatory and punitive damages plus a jury trial. The court granted the owners' motion to dismiss Smith's punitive damages claim and to strike his jury demand. It reasoned that punitive damages are unavailable under the Jones Act or general maritime law for unseaworthiness or maintenance and cure claims, as these are limited to pecuniary losses per Supreme Court precedent in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., and that jury trials are not permitted in such limitation proceedings under the Supplemental Admiralty Rules. The decision rested on Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(f) standards for dismissing insufficient claims and striking immaterial matter.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Bartolomeo v. United States, the plaintiff sought a redetermination of her tax liability and review of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien filed by the IRS for unpaid employment taxes assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for the third quarter of 1995, following a collection due process hearing under 26 U.S.C. § 6330. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff was statutorily barred from challenging the underlying tax liability in the hearing, had failed to propose any collection alternatives or provide required financial information despite multiple opportunities, and the IRS Appeals Office had complied with statutory requirements without abusing its discretion in upholding the lien.

taxesprocedure

In this civil action, plaintiff Angelo Medure sued The Vindicator Printing Company and reporter Cory Armstrong for defamation and punitive damages arising from a 1997 newspaper article that reported his company Gaming World had been placed under FBI investigation for allegedly skimming $22 million from a casino it managed. After removal to federal court and partial dismissals, defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court adopted in part and overruled in part the magistrate judge’s amended report and recommendation, determining that Medure qualified as a limited-purpose public figure in connection with a public controversy, that he therefore bore the burden of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence under New York Times v. Sullivan, and that he also had to prove falsity; on that basis the court entered judgment for defendants as a matter of law. Pennsylvania law governed the claim, and the court rejected application of certain privileges while resolving the public-figure issue in defendants’ favor.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case involved Kathleen Sklenar's applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, which were denied by an administrative law judge on the ground that her alcoholism was a material contributing factor to her disability under the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. The ALJ found that Sklenar had severe impairments including depression, anxiety, and alcoholism that met certain listings, but that without alcohol use she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past work as a dry cleaner. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court ordered, denial of the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, grant of Sklenar's motion, and remand for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the effects of alcohol cessation based on adequate medical or other evidence addressing her remaining impairments. The court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in full.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned a breach of guaranty claim brought by McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVI, L.P. against Matthews, Inc. of Delaware after Reading China, a sister company, filed for bankruptcy, rejected its commercial lease for space at Northway Mall, and stopped paying rent. McNeil sought to enforce a guaranty agreement signed by Matthews' CFO that accelerated all lease obligations upon the tenant's bankruptcy rejection. The court granted McNeil's motion for summary judgment, finding that the CFO had apparent authority to bind Matthews based on his role in lease negotiations, prior agreements on Matthews' behalf, and the guaranty's explicit incorporation into the lease. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with directions for the parties to stipulate the total amount owed, including uncontested damages plus interest and the present value of remaining base rent through 2005.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, the Federal Trade Commission sued Commonwealth Marketing Group and related defendants for alleged violations of the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule involving vacation telemarketing, and defendants responded with a counterclaim against the FTC, the United States, and individual officials asserting Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, Pennsylvania constitutional claims, and torts such as abuse of process and conversion arising from the FTC's ex parte TRO application and subsequent asset seizure. The court addressed counterclaim defendants' motion to dismiss and the FTC's motion to strike the jury demand and certain defenses in the amended answer. The court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim in part, granted the motion to strike the jury demand for the FTC's claims, and granted the motion to strike certain defenses in part, primarily on grounds including absolute immunity for government attorneys' prosecutorial actions, sovereign immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction over some claims, and the absence of final agency action reviewable under the APA.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure