Stewart R. Dalzell

In Hofferica v. St. Mary Medical Center, plaintiff Kathleen Hofferica sued her employer for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), claiming interference with her FMLA rights due to the employer's failure to provide sufficient notice about her right to reinstatement and the risk of losing her position if she did not return by February 2009. The defendant moved to dismiss the FMLA interference claim based on inadequate notice. The court dismissed this portion of the claim, holding that the complaint lacked concrete factual allegations of notice deficiencies, did not plead prejudice from any such failure, and did not meet the requirements of the applicable FMLA regulations in effect at the time.

labor & employmentcivil rights

David Hightower, an African-American principal employed by the Easton Area School District since 1989, sued the district under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. He alleged a hostile work environment, discrimination in promotions and discipline based on race, and retaliation after complaining about discriminatory conduct. The district moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part after examining undisputed facts on Hightower's employment and promotion applications, along with disputed evidence of alleged discriminatory statements and actions by administrators, to assess whether genuine issues of material fact existed under the relevant legal standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Plaintiff Kathleen Hofferica, a nurse, sued her employer St. Mary Medical Center under the ADA, PHRA, and FMLA after her termination following medical leave for Méniére’s disease. St. Mary moved to dismiss the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, arguing that Hofferica failed to allege she could return to work when her leave expired. The court dismissed the interference claim based on refusal to reinstate her, as she did not plead an ability to perform her job duties at the end of leave. For the notice-related interference claim, the court noted that existing law suggests it fails due to lack of prejudice but granted Hofferica leave to brief the issue further. The court found that Hofferica had stated a plausible FMLA retaliation claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a product liability suit in which plaintiffs Judith and Donald Pusey alleged that a syringe manufactured by defendant Becton Dickinson caused an infection during Judith's breast expansion procedure after a mastectomy, leading to removal of the expander; the syringe was among those later recalled for packaging defects. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, and loss of consortium. The court granted Becton's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to support any genuine dispute of material fact with record citations showing that the specific syringe was defective or that any defect caused the infection, despite having access to all relevant discovery including medical records and recall documents; evidence of the recall alone was insufficient to establish causation or defect without additional proof.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a diversity action in which subcontractor Haines & Kibblehouse sued general contractor Balfour Beatty for over $1 million in extra costs allegedly caused by delays, incomplete predecessor work, and unilateral scheduling changes on a PennDOT highway construction project. Balfour moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or to stay the litigation under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7), raising defenses based on the subcontract's pay-when-paid clause and prior court rulings. The court examined the procedural history across state and federal filings, including earlier dismissals, remands, and an appeal, and analyzed whether judicial estoppel barred the claims due to the plaintiff's inconsistent positions on jurisdiction and new facts before the Third Circuit. Core reasoning centered on whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted bad faith or affirmative misrepresentation sufficient to invoke estoppel, while noting that courts generally do not apply estoppel to mere switches on jurisdictional issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between PAETEC and Verizon over whether PAETEC's federal tariff for interstate switched access services complied with FCC rate benchmarks and whether Verizon was obligated to pay the billed charges. In prior rulings, the court determined that PAETEC's tariff was not void, certain rates complied with the benchmark while others did not, and some were deemed lawful. The court now enters final judgment on the declaratory judgment claims under Rule 54(b), certifies issues for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), orders Verizon to pay PAETEC over $3.8 million for unpaid SWAS charges, declares SWAS-DC charges deemed lawful for a specific period without refund liability, and stays remaining claims pending appeal. The court reasoned that the parties agreed on these steps to allow efficient appellate review without needing FCC referral on remaining issues.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Joseph Askew's claims against the trustees and leaders of a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation that manages the assets of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, alleging misappropriation of funds, improper salaries, and other breaches following a disputed leadership succession after the 1991 death of Bishop Shelton. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and denied Askew's related request to appoint a receiver as moot, holding that Askew lacked standing because he was a member of the unincorporated church association but not a member of the corporation and therefore could not pursue derivative claims on its behalf.

procedurereligious liberty

This case was a class action lawsuit alleging that the union UNITE violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by obtaining and using employees’ motor vehicle records to contact Cintas Corporation workers during a unionization effort. After years of discovery, motions, a class certification, partial judgments for named plaintiffs, appeals to the Third Circuit, and a Supreme Court denial of certiorari, the parties mediated and reached a settlement. Under the agreement, UNITE deposited $4,022,500 into escrow to pay eligible class members $2,500 each in statutory liquidated damages (with any remainder returned to UNITE) and to cover $1 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under the Girsh factors, with no objections filed and notices sent to the 1,209 potential class members.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a farmer sued the PSPCA and two of its officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional searches and seizures of his animals and property pursuant to a warrant, failure to train the officers, and a common-law conversion claim after state animal cruelty charges against him were dismissed. The defendants moved to dismiss the § 1983 claims on grounds including the validity of the warrant, qualified immunity, and the absence of a Monell claim against the PSPCA. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ordering the plaintiff to clarify aspects of his Fourth Amendment and post-deprivation remedy claims, primarily because the PSPCA officers lacked common-law support for qualified immunity under precedents like Wyatt and Richardson.

civil rightscriminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Francis Burke suing the Township of Cheltenham and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania tort law, alleging unlawful search and seizure, false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, failure to supervise, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from his April 6, 2008 arrest for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct, during which he claims he was strip searched, physically assaulted, and later subjected to retaliatory charges after complaining. Defendants moved for partial dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds including Heck v. Humphrey preclusion from Burke's conviction, subsumption of Fourteenth Amendment claims, limits on municipal liability and punitive damages, and qualified immunity. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing counts for false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and failure to supervise entirely, along with portions of the search and seizure and excessive force claims and certain retaliation aspects, while denying dismissal for the remaining search, excessive force, and retaliation claims against individual officers and the municipality, and rejecting qualified immunity for the retaliation claim. The core reasoning centered on accepting the complaint's factual allegations as true, applying precedents like Heck and Fourth Amendment standards, and finding that some claims lacked sufficient allegations of policy or causation while others adequately pleaded violations of clearly established rights.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speechtorts & liability

In United States v. Rivera, the defendant, a parolee charged with one count of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), moved to suppress evidence seized on June 1, 2009, including a gun and ammunition found in the trunk of a car he had driven. The court granted the motion to suppress the gun and ammunition but denied it as to other evidence, holding that the parole officer lacked reasonable suspicion to search the trunk. The core reasoning was that the officer had no basis to believe evidence of suspected parole violations—such as driving without permission or associating with drug users—would be located in the trunk, and Pennsylvania law requires reasonable suspicion for parolee searches rather than permitting unlimited searches upon any violation.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case was a criminal prosecution of nine officers and employees of MultiEthnic Behavioral Health, Inc., a contractor providing in-home services to at-risk children in Philadelphia under a city contract funded largely by federal TANF dollars; the defendants were charged with wire fraud, health care fraud, conspiracy, and related offenses after they failed to make required visits and then fabricated records following the death of a severely disabled child. The court addressed two complex restitution questions under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act arising at sentencing: whether the City of Philadelphia qualifies as a “victim” and how to calculate the amount of restitution owed from the more than $3.6 million the City had paid the provider. The court reasoned that the City’s status as a victim is uncertain because the record showed systemic oversight failures by the City’s own Department of Human Services, that the burden of proof on the issue falls on the government, and that the amount of restitution must be ascertainable rather than imposed reflexively.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case concerns a billing dispute in which PAETEC, a competitive local exchange carrier, sued Verizon, an interexchange carrier, for unpaid charges under PAETEC's federal and state tariffs for switched access services, plus claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, and sought a declaratory judgment that its charges were lawful. Verizon counterclaimed that the charges exceeded amounts permitted by federal law and PAETEC's own tariff and sought a declaratory judgment that it need not pay the disputed amounts. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that questions about the lawfulness of PAETEC's tariff rates under FCC rules, including whether its network configuration qualified for certain charges, fall within the FCC's primary jurisdiction and must be addressed there first, while also finding that the statute of limitations bars one of Verizon's challenges to a tariff amendment.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved the sentencing of Earle McNeill, founder of MultiEthnic Behavioral Health, Inc., who had pled guilty to one count of wire fraud after his company received millions in federal funds for providing services to at-risk children in Philadelphia but failed to deliver them, leading to a child's death and subsequent cover-up attempts. The court sustained the government's objection to the presentence report, applying a two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because McNeill had misled the probation officer about his income from the company. It also denied any reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, finding the case not extraordinary, and imposed a 90-month sentence within the resulting advisory guideline range after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The reasoning centered on McNeill's false statements to investigators and the probation officer, along with his failure to demonstrate genuine remorse or cooperation despite the fraud and document fabrication.

criminal law

This case involved direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and persalts who sued FMC Corporation and FMC Foret under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that affected both their U.S. and foreign purchases. After discovery, the defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the foreign purchase claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). The court granted the motion, holding that the FTAIA's domestic effect exception did not apply because the plaintiffs' foreign injuries did not arise from a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce, even assuming a unified global pricing scheme and U.S.-based meetings to restrict capacity. The court reasoned that any domestic effects were not the proximate cause of the foreign overcharges, as required by the statute's text and precedents like Empagran.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involves Susan Bayer's claims under ERISA and state law for life insurance and retirement benefits from her late husband Herbert's employer-sponsored plans at Fluor Corporation, asserting that she remained the lawful spouse and beneficiary after his 2004 death because his later marriage to Sinead Cooke was invalid. The court addressed multiple motions from institutional defendants including Fluor, Marsh, and CGLIC entities. It granted the Fluor defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, granted Marsh's motion for summary judgment on all claims, dismissed the ERISA benefits claim against CGLIC defendants as time-barred under the plan's limitations period, dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3), and dismissed state law claims against all but the individual defendants Meaghan and Sinead. The reasoning centered on ERISA's statutory requirements for claims, applicable time bars, the absence of viable fiduciary breaches affecting the plan, and preemption or lack of basis for state claims against the plan administrators and insurers.

labor & employmentprocedurefamily law

This case is an interpleader action brought by TIAA-CREF to determine the beneficiary of three annuity contracts owned by the late Dr. John Turner. Defendants Thomas Bernardo and Pamela Turner (Turner's ex-wife) each claim sole beneficiary status based on forms Dr. Turner executed in 1977 and 1981, as well as the 1985 divorce decree and property settlement agreement. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment seeking declaratory relief on the beneficiary issue. The court analyzed whether Dr. Turner's 1981 form substantially complied with the contract's requirements for changing a beneficiary designation, despite TIAA-CREF's subsequent letter returning the form, and whether the divorce documents waived or released any rights to the annuities.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute between brothers and co-owners of RDP Technologies, Inc., a water and wastewater treatment equipment company, after Paul Christy resigned and became involved with Nordetek Environmental, Inc., which secured rights to competing Tekkem lime slakers. The litigation centered on cross-motions for preliminary injunctions arising from a non-competition covenant and confidentiality provisions in the brothers' 1995 Shareholder Agreement, as well as related claims under a 2001 license agreement. After an expedited hearing and review of testimony and documents, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), determining that the non-compete was enforceable, that Paul had violated it by obtaining the Tekkem license for Nordetek, and that RDP was entitled to injunctive relief because monetary damages were inadequate. The core reasoning focused on the plain terms of the 1995 Agreement, which imposed a two-year worldwide non-compete upon termination of employment for any reason and explicitly noted that breaches would cause irreparable harm, while rejecting arguments that the covenant was unenforceable or that specific performance was unavailable.

business & regulatory

The case arose from disputes in Pennsylvania Orphans' Court over the probate of James H. Langman's estate and the interaction of that estate with four trusts of which his son Jesse was a beneficiary, leading Jesse to sue the estate's administrators and their counsel for abuse of process and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It held that both claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations and that Jesse had identified no actionable conduct by the defendants within the limitations period preceding the filing of suit. The court noted that the only event Jesse cited during that window was the defendants' concession on certain tax issues, which could not constitute an abuse of process or breach of fiduciary duty.

torts & liabilityprocedureproperty

In Jackson v. Planco, plaintiff Tony Jackson, a former Lotus Notes Administrator at PLANCO Financial Services, sued his employer for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Jackson alleged that his May 2007 termination resulted from his heart condition and gout, as well as from complaints about a supervisor's treatment following his medical leaves in 2006. PLANCO moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that Jackson failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the required elements of his discrimination and retaliation claims under the applicable legal standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights