The case consolidated four age discrimination claims by salaried employees laid off and terminated in 1985 during Spang & Co.'s reduction in force prompted by business losses. Defendant moved for summary judgment in each action. The court granted the motion in one case (involving a signed release), holding that undisputed evidence showed the plaintiff's waiver of her ADEA claim was knowing and voluntary. It denied summary judgment in the remaining three cases, finding triable issues of fact on whether the company's asserted legitimate reasons were pretextual, including questions of relative qualifications, the decision-making process, and witness credibility.
This case involves the U.S. government's effort to recover excavation and cleanup costs for oil contamination at an abandoned drilling site in the Allegheny National Forest under the Clean Water Act. After an earlier ruling found Quaker State not liable as an owner or operator under 33 U.S.C. § 1321(f), the government amended its claim to seek recovery from Quaker State as a culpable third party under § 1321(g). Quaker State moved for summary judgment, arguing that alleged negligence by the National Forest Service prevented a finding that any discharge was caused solely by Quaker State. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute expressly permits third-party liability even when the discharge results from the third party's conduct in combination with U.S. government negligence, without regard to fault.
The case was a civil forfeiture action brought by the U.S. government against 294 video draw poker and similar machines seized by the FBI from bars, restaurants, clubs, and distributors in Erie County, Pennsylvania, under federal statutes prohibiting the interstate transportation of gambling devices (15 U.S.C. § 1171 et seq.). Claimants argued the machines were intended only for amusement and did not qualify as gambling devices. The court granted summary judgment and ordered forfeiture for the majority of the machines (Categories 1-4), concluding they met the statutory definition because they awarded credits that could be redeemed for cash payouts by establishment owners. Summary judgment was denied as to disassembled machines, Blackjack machines, one reel-type slot machine, and $24,694 in coins due to inadequate evidence on their functionality and use. The core reasoning focused on the machines' mechanics of play, point accumulation, and potential for cash conversion rather than any actual observed payouts.
This case involves the United States seeking civil forfeiture of real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) on the ground that it was used to store and sell cocaine, with title held by the owners as tenants by the entirety and subject to a preexisting mortgage held by Marquette Savings Association. The court had previously ordered forfeiture of the owners' interests, and while an appeal was pending, the mortgage holder moved for summary judgment seeking post-seizure interest on its lien, attorney's fees and costs, turnover of collected rents, and the right to foreclose. The court ruled that Marquette is entitled to the unpaid mortgage balance plus contractual interest if forfeiture is upheld, but denied claims for post-seizure fees or costs, rents, foreclosure, or interference with government possession and control during the appeal. The reasoning followed the Fourth Circuit's Metmor decision that the government's forfeited interest is limited to the equity of redemption subject to the full preexisting mortgage obligation, while additional remedies and control rights are not part of the protected lien and would improperly diminish the government's position or disrupt forfeiture proceedings.
The United States brought civil forfeiture actions under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) against two parcels of real property titled to Ronald and Jeannine Thomas as tenants by the entirety, alleging the properties had been used to facilitate violations of federal narcotics laws. Ronald Thomas had previously been convicted of multiple cocaine-related offenses. After a non-jury trial, the court found the government had established probable cause that both the Caughey Road residence and the West 26th Street car lot were used to store, share, and distribute cocaine. The court rejected Jeannine Thomas’s innocent-owner defense, concluding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she lacked knowledge of her husband’s drug activities on the properties, based on witness testimony and other evidence showing her awareness. Accordingly, the interests of both claimants in the properties were ordered forfeited to the United States.
This case involved a creditor, Hodes Co., that obtained a default judgment against David Leretsis for a business debt and purchased household items at a sheriff's auction to satisfy it, after which Leretsis and his wife filed for bankruptcy and claimed the items as exempt marital property. The Bankruptcy Court overruled the creditor's objection to the exemption, and the District Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania law protects property held in tenancy by the entireties from execution on a judgment against only one spouse, that the sheriff could convey only the limited indivisible interest of the judgment debtor, and that the debtors' inaction during the execution process did not waive their right to challenge the sale in the bankruptcy proceeding. The creditor's other arguments, including claims of prejudice or possible non-marital status of some items, lacked evidentiary support.
