A. Richard Caputo

Gentex sued former employees Sutter and Walko along with their new employer Armor for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, and tortious interference, alleging that the employees copied and shared proprietary files related to Advanced Combat Helmet designs in violation of nondisclosure agreements. The court granted default judgment against Sutter and Walko based on their intentional destruction of relevant electronic evidence, including files on CDs, thumb drives, and computers after litigation holds were implemented, which caused irretrievable prejudice to Gentex. The motion was denied as to the corporate defendants because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Armor engaged in spoliation through premature lifting of the litigation hold or destruction of backup tapes. The court found default judgment proportional for the individuals due to the willful nature of the destruction, the resulting prejudice, and the need for deterrence in cases involving electronic evidence.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a minor student whose cell phone was confiscated by school officials for violating school policy, after which officials searched the phone, found explicit self-taken photos, and turned it over to county law enforcement. Prosecutors then threatened felony child pornography charges unless the student completed a re-education course on sexual violence, and the student sued county officials and the county alleging unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment as well as First Amendment violations regarding the protected images, seeking both equitable relief and damages. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), reasoning that the allegations sufficiently stated claims against the county for municipal liability based on failure to train or supervise investigative functions, as opposed to prosecutorial decisions, and that factual disputes could not be resolved at this stage.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal law

In Bryan v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought Social Security Disability Insurance benefits based on multiple medical conditions, but an ALJ denied the claim after finding that only one impairment was severe and that the plaintiff retained residual functional capacity for certain work; the district court and magistrate judge upheld the denial, though the Third Circuit remanded for further consideration of the back impairment's impact and the ALJ's evaluation of the plaintiff's testimony and conflicting medical evidence. Following the partial remand, the plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the government's position was substantially justified because it had a reasonable basis in both law and fact, including established precedent on an ALJ's discretion to assess credibility and weigh subjective complaints of pain against other evidence, and because the Third Circuit had affirmed most of the ALJ's findings. The decision emphasized that the EAJA is not a loser-pays statute and that the government's prelitigation and litigation positions need only be reasonable, not correct.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

This case involves an insurance company's complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify several defendants against claims in underlying consolidated federal litigation arising from a kickback scheme involving juvenile detention facilities in Luzerne County. The defendants, including operators of the facilities and related entities, moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion, holding that the underlying complaints alleged knowing violations of constitutional rights through false imprisonment and related conspiracy claims that fell within policy exclusions for expected or intended injury and knowing violations of rights under Coverage A and B. Because the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend, the absence of a duty to defend also supported the insurer's position on indemnity.

criminal lawcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In Rockledge Development Co. v. Wright Township, the plaintiff mortgage holder sued the township and its supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process. The company alleged that the township's decision to withhold building and zoning permits from the property owners—without notifying the mortgagee—deprived it of its property interest in the mortgaged lot. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that no deprivation of a protected property interest occurred. Drawing on persuasive precedent, the opinion reasoned that the township's actions did not immediately or drastically diminish the mortgagee's interest, as the company retained the ability to foreclose or take possession upon default, unlike cases involving tax sales. Because the first element of a procedural due process claim was unmet, the court did not reach issues of timeliness or available procedures.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves Pennsylvania residents suing Southwestern Energy Production Company over alleged groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing and drilling at a nearby well, which exposed them to toxic chemicals and reduced their property values; the plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence, private nuisance, strict liability, and trespass. The defendant moved to dismiss the strict liability count and emotional distress damages except as to one plaintiff. The court denied dismissal of strict liability, holding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts supporting an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts §520 factors, while dismissing emotional distress claims for all but plaintiff C.S. due to the lack of alleged physical injury and granting leave to amend for inconvenience and discomfort damages.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This case arose from allegations that two Luzerne County judges, Conahan and Ciavarella, participated in a kickback scheme with private juvenile detention facility operators and others, in which the judges improperly detained juveniles—including plaintiff Raul Clark—in those facilities to generate profits, while denying the juveniles due process rights such as counsel and impartial adjudication. Plaintiffs brought civil claims under RICO, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and related fraud and tort theories against the judges, facility operators, probation staff, and others. On motions to dismiss, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing all claims against the judges' wives and some official-capacity or punitive-damage claims while allowing most conspiracy, RICO, and constitutional-violation claims to proceed against the remaining defendants. The core reasoning was that the complaint's factual allegations adequately pleaded the elements of those surviving claims, including an association-in-fact enterprise, predicate acts, and personal involvement, but were insufficient as to the dismissed defendants or theories.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Moyer, police lieutenant William Moyer and co-defendants were charged with conspiracy, falsifying records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, attempting to conceal evidence and corrupt persuasion under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and making false statements, stemming from allegations that they covered up a racially motivated assault by filing misleading police reports, releasing suspects, and influencing witness statements after a Latino victim died from blunt force trauma. Defendant Moyer filed multiple pretrial motions seeking to dismiss the indictment counts for insufficient allegations or unconstitutional vagueness, along with various discovery requests including Brady/Giglio material, early Jencks Act disclosures, grand jury minutes, and preservation of evidence. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding the indictment sufficiently alleged violations and that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, and denied most discovery motions for lack of demonstrated need or entitlement under the rules, while granting in part motions to preserve evidence and to provide notice of Rule 16 evidence intended for trial, as well as limited leave to file additional motions based on new discovery.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a corrections captain, Michael Barnes, who sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and two supervisors after an investigation into an inmate injury during a 2007 cell shakedown at SCI-Frackville, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, conspiracy, and First Amendment retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department of Corrections on all claims and to the individual defendants on all counts except the First Amendment retaliation claim against Shannon and Macon. The court denied the motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's filings. It reasoned that Barnes failed to present evidence supporting the dismissed claims but that factual disputes remained regarding whether the supervisors retaliated against him for protected speech during the internal investigation process.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speechprocedure

In Banks v. Gallagher, plaintiff Edward Kraft sued police officers Karen Gallagher and Anthony Mariano, along with the Borough of Dickson City, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after officers responded to a 911 call about men openly carrying firearms at an Old Country Buffet restaurant in 2008. The officers asked Kraft and others to step outside, requested identification and concealed weapons permits, and ran checks on some individuals, prompting claims of unreasonable seizure and other constitutional violations. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying Kraft's motion for summary judgment on liability. The core reasoning was that factual disputes existed about whether the officers made demands or requests, the officers had a basis to investigate a non-emergency report, there was no showing of deliberate indifference by the officers or the municipality, and no underlying rights violation supported municipal liability.

gunscivil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Option One Mortgage Corporation's claims against NBT Bank and JP Morgan Chase Bank for conversion of a $113,613 insurance proceeds check issued after fire damage to mortgaged property; the check was made payable to the Fitzgerald homeowners and Option One, but the Fitzgeralds deposited it without Option One's indorsement and the banks paid out the funds. The court granted Option One's motion for summary judgment on its UCC § 3420 conversion claim and denied the banks' motion, while a default judgment had already been entered against the Fitzgeralds. It reasoned that the banks were liable for paying on the check without all necessary indorsements as required by the mortgage terms and Option One's policy, with damages measured by the check amount plus statutory prejudgment interest at six percent from the date of conversion. The court entered judgment for Option One in the amount of $136,176.54.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves parents of students with autism suing a special education teacher, her employer NEIU, and the Abington Heights School District, along with various administrators, over alleged physical and emotional abuse in the classroom during the 2001-2003 school years, including improper restraints and other mistreatment. The claims asserted violations of substantive due process and equal protection under the Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504, and related state tort claims. On motions for summary judgment, the court granted in part and denied in part each motion, dismissing equal protection claims and certain counts against the school district and administrators for lack of evidence of direct involvement or deliberate indifference, while allowing substantive due process claims against the teacher and NEIU to proceed based on evidence of inadequate supervision and training; the plaintiffs' own motion was denied entirely.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a patent infringement dispute between competitors Arlington Industries and Bridgeport Fittings over electrical connectors. Arlington alleged that Bridgeport infringed Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,521,831, which covers a duplex connector with specific features including a split spring steel adaptor. The court granted Bridgeport's motions for summary judgment on non-infringement, non-willfulness, and damages regarding the '831 Patent. It reasoned that Bridgeport's products lack a split adaptor and thus do not literally infringe the claim, and that the doctrine of equivalents could not apply without vitiating the split limitation. The court had previously stayed proceedings during PTO reexamination but lifted the stay before ruling.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Cheryl Slater, a former Susquehanna County correctional officer, sued the county, prison officials, and her union (Teamsters Local 229 and business representative Jack McGrail) alleging she faced age and gender-based harassment from supervisors and coworkers, including the "Secret Sisters" group, and was retaliated against after complaining about discrimination and an inmate's death in 2004. She raised federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for constitutional violations, Title VII and ADEA discrimination and retaliation, plus state claims for conspiracy, emotional distress, and wrongful discharge. The union defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint or for summary judgment. The court analyzed the motion under Rule 12(b)(6), noting that § 1985(3) conspiracy claims cannot rest on Title VII or ADEA violations, that the union had no direct role in employment decisions like termination, and that administrative exhaustion allegations were insufficient to support certain counts.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved two former employees of the Wyoming Area School District who sued the district and individual school board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming First Amendment retaliation for their political support of candidates in school board elections and for one plaintiff's prior lawsuit against the district. The plaintiffs alleged that after a new board took office in 2005, defendants took adverse employment actions including altered schedules, poor evaluations, reduced compensation, and non-renewal of contracts. The court granted summary judgment to the school district on all claims, finding no evidence of a municipal policy or custom causing the alleged harm under Monell, and also granted judgment to the individual defendants on claims arising from their December 2005 vote adopting a revised compensation plan on grounds of legislative immunity. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claims and punitive damages, concluding that the record presented genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendants acted with retaliatory intent against protected speech. The case was resolved on February 20, 2009.

free speechcivil rightselectionslabor & employment

This case involves an electrical contractor, Leer Electric, suing the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and several of its officials. Leer alleges that the agency initiated administrative proceedings to debar it from public works contracts in retaliation for its employees' decision to remain non-union, in violation of federal and state due process and equal protection rights, along with related state-law claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against the Department and the state-law claims against the individual officials based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and dismissed the civil conspiracy claim for insufficient factual allegations, but allowed the federal Section 1983 due process and equal protection claims against the officials to proceed.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Plaintiff Brenda Enterline sued Pocono Medical Center for a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment and for retaliation after she complained. She served a subpoena on The Pocono Record seeking the identities of anonymous individuals who posted comments on the newspaper's website about the lawsuit. The newspaper objected on First Amendment grounds and other bases. The court denied the motion to compel, ruling that the newspaper had third-party standing to assert the commenters' First Amendment rights and that disclosure was not required because the plaintiff could obtain needed information through ordinary discovery without infringing on anonymous speech protections.

free speechprocedurelabor & employment

Judy Ann Showers was convicted of first-degree murder in Pennsylvania state court after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1992 death of her husband. She filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present rebuttal expert testimony on forensic issues such as disguising the taste of liquid morphine, voluntary swallowing characteristics, and autopsy results. The district court granted the petition as to that ineffective-assistance claim and denied the others, concluding that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial because available expert evidence could have supported the defense theory of suicide. The court remanded the case to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for further proceedings consistent with its memorandum.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kokinda v. Breiner, plaintiff Paul Kokinda sued two police officers and their borough employers after the officers entered his backyard, allegedly threatened his dog, twisted his arm, forced him to the ground causing injury, and arrested him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The court addressed motions to dismiss claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, malicious prosecution, and false arrest, plus related state-law tort claims. It dismissed the failure-to-intervene claim, malicious prosecution and false arrest claims under federal and state law, and punitive damages against the municipalities, but allowed the excessive-force claims against all defendants and the state-law assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the officers to proceed. The core reasoning was that the complaint adequately alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force and that the officers lacked immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act for the remaining tort claims, while the other claims failed to state a viable cause of action.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Watcher v. Pottsville Area Emergency Medical Service, Inc., plaintiff Shirley Watcher sued her employer alleging sex discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA and PHRA, and related state claims, claiming a hostile work environment and termination based on age and sex. After a jury trial, she prevailed only on the age-based hostile work environment claims under the ADEA and PHRA, receiving awards for emotional distress and back pay (later reduced by post-trial rulings), while losing on the sex discrimination and termination claims. The court granted in part her petition for attorneys' fees and costs, awarding $224,573.75 in fees and $18,013.03 in costs after calculating the lodestar, reducing hours for unsuccessful claims and limited overall success, and excluding certain unrelated expenses.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure