Richard Barclay Surrick

In Weems v. Kehe Food Distributors, Inc., a Black truck driver sued his former employer for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging he was disciplined for infractions that similarly situated non-Black coworkers were not and was terminated after complaining. The defendant moved to partially dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for harassment and hostile work environment claims in the EEOC charge, failure to exhaust under the PHRA, and untimeliness of the Title VII claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims fell within the scope of the EEOC charge describing ongoing disparate discipline, that equitable filing principles might excuse the PHRA exhaustion requirement pending discovery on alleged misinformation from the EEOC office, and that the 90-day limitations period began upon actual receipt of the right-to-sue letter rather than its issuance, rendering the suit timely.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit filed by the parents of Sean Sullivan, who was fatally shot by officers from Warminster and Warrington Township police departments in March 2006 while attempting to evade arrest by climbing out a window of his mother's home. The complaint alleged federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, denial of medical assistance, municipal liability, and supervisory liability, along with related state-law claims for wrongful death, survival, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part after reviewing the record facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, including the circumstances of the arrest warrant execution, the officers' positions, and statements made during the incident. The partial denials preserved certain claims involving the officers who fired shots and related municipal and state-law issues for further proceedings.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Perkins v. Beltway Capital, LLC, plaintiff Juanita Perkins filed suit in Pennsylvania state court alleging that a 2006 mortgage loan violated the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, seeking rescission, cancellation, and damages after a prior state-court default foreclosure judgment against her. Defendants removed the case to federal district court under federal-question jurisdiction based on the TILA claim. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had lost in state court, the federal claims sought to redress injuries caused by the final state foreclosure judgment, and the suit effectively asked the federal court to review and reject that judgment. The court also noted that the plaintiff's objection to incomplete consent for removal was waived as untimely but did not affect the jurisdictional ruling.

procedureproperty

In this case, white reporter Thomas Burlington sued his employer, Fox Television Stations, alleging reverse racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act after he used the N-word once during a 2007 newsroom editorial meeting while discussing a story about the NAACP symbolically burying the slur; Burlington was suspended, investigated, and ultimately not reinstated, which he claimed stemmed from his race while the station pointed to workplace disruption and publicity. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim but denied it as to the discrimination and retaliation claims. The core reasoning was that material factual disputes exist regarding whether Burlington was treated differently from similarly situated non-white employees who used the word, whether the station's investigation and decisions were pretextual, and whether his conduct justified the adverse actions, leaving those issues for a jury to resolve.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case is a securities fraud action in which real estate investment trusts that purchased mortgage-backed securities from Merrill Lynch entities in August 2005 alleged that the defendants misrepresented material terms of the securities, including prepayment penalties and other features of the underlying mortgage pools, leading to higher risk and lower returns than expected. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation, as the alleged economic losses occurred amid unprecedented market-wide declines in the mortgage industry rather than being directly traceable to the specific misrepresentations, and certain claims lacked sufficient factual allegations of injury or standing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Ira E. Rupard III seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits claim, based on alleged hand impairments from degenerative arthritis with an onset date before his insured status expired in September 2001. The ALJ had determined that Plaintiff was not disabled after finding his impairments did not meet the severity requirements at step two and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light work. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the Commissioner's objections, and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings because the ALJ did not properly consider the medical evidence from treating physicians regarding the hand impairments and failed to develop the record adequately on that issue.

healthcareprocedure

This case was a class action securities lawsuit filed by shareholders against Adolor Corporation and its officers, alleging that the company made materially false and misleading public statements about the results of Phase III clinical trials for its drug Entereg (alvimopan), which was being developed to treat post-operative ileus. The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, Section 20(a), and Section 11 of the Securities Act, claiming the statements misrepresented trial data on efficacy and safety during the class period from April 2003 to December 2004. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The core reasoning was that many statements were not false or misleading when made, were protected forward-looking statements under the PSLRA safe harbor, or lacked the required particularized facts showing scienter.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Alycia Lane's state-court lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting and other defendants alleging eighteen Pennsylvania common-law and statutory claims, including defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and violations of state wiretap and stored-communications statutes, all arising from her 2008 termination as a KYW-TV news anchor after a New York incident. Defendants removed the action to federal court, arguing that the complaint's references to federal criminal proceedings against co-defendant Lawrence Mendte and potential preemption or other federal issues created federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the well-pleaded complaint asserted only state-law causes of action that did not necessarily depend on the resolution of any substantial federal question, that the artful-pleading doctrine did not apply because there was no complete preemption, and that doubts about jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand to state court.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a motion for reconsideration of an attorney's fees award following a Title IX lawsuit in which plaintiffs successfully challenged West Chester University's elimination of its women's gymnastics team, resulting in a preliminary injunction and settlement that reinstated the program. The court had previously granted fees but reduced the lodestar amount by fifteen percent after considering the university's status as a public institution funded by taxpayers and the potential impact on students. Plaintiffs argued that this reduction constituted clear legal error and manifest injustice. The court denied the motion, holding that consideration of the defendant's financial circumstances was appropriate in determining a reasonable fee amount under fee-shifting statutes and that the reduction properly balanced the interests involved without punishing the university or its students.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute arising from a 2004 stock purchase agreement in which plaintiffs agreed to buy 75% of two car dealership companies from defendants, including alleged misrepresentations about the companies' financial condition, failure to obtain required manufacturer approvals, and related financing arrangements with a bank. After the court previously dismissed the federal securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, it retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for breach of contract, torts, and related causes of action. On the defendants' motions to dismiss, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that certain breach-of-contract allegations against the seller were adequately pled under Pennsylvania law while other claims, including some against the accountant and third-party beneficiary theories, failed to state a claim. The decision rests on analysis of the specific contract provisions governing book-value adjustments, closing conditions, and warranties, as well as pleading requirements under Rule 12(b)(6) and Pennsylvania contract principles.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Molly Guinan bringing tort and related claims against stent manufacturer Numed, Inc. and its CEO Allen Tower after she developed serious complications, including protein losing enteropathy and plastic bronchitis, following implantation of an unapproved Cheatham Platinum covered stent as part of her heart defect treatment. Earlier rulings had dismissed several claims, leaving negligence, fraud, and medical monitoring at issue when the defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that implied warranty claims failed under applicable state law because the FDCA precludes private enforcement and no viable merchantability or fitness claims existed independent of FDA requirements.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a lawsuit filed by attorney Philip Berg against Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, the Federal Election Commission, and other defendants, alleging that Obama was not a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President under Article II of the Constitution and asserting related claims under civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, FOIA, and other laws, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Obama's nomination and candidacy. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that Berg lacked standing to bring the constitutional eligibility challenge, that the civil rights and other statutory claims were unsupported by factual allegations or failed as a matter of law, and that certain claims were barred by exclusive enforcement mechanisms or inapplicable statutes.

electionscivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs, a group of music recording and licensing companies, suing a Pennsylvania resort operating Crazy Carol’s Sports Bar and its officer for multiple violations of the Copyright Act by publicly performing eight copyrighted songs without a license. Plaintiffs had sent repeated notices and offers to license over nearly two years before filing suit, but defendants never responded or appeared in court, resulting in an entry of default. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, awarding statutory damages of $2,000 per infringement ($16,000 total), a permanent injunction against further infringements, attorneys’ fees and costs of $5,355, and interest. The ruling rested on accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true due to the default, confirming the unauthorized performances, and finding the requested remedies appropriate under the Copyright Act and applicable procedural standards.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, defendant Damon Andre Dill, convicted by jury and bench trial of federal firearm and drug trafficking offenses including possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and as a felon, filed a pro se habeas corpus motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a certiorari petition, renew a Rule 29 acquittal motion, and call a witness, plus a claim of actual innocence regarding the firearm. He also petitioned for entry of default due to the government's delayed response. The court denied both the habeas motion and the default petition, applying the Strickland standard to find no deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's actions, determining the claims lacked merit, and noting the strong presumption against default judgments against the government in criminal habeas matters, while declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involves a dispute between brand-name drug manufacturers (GSK) and generic manufacturers (Mutual and URL) under the Hatch-Waxman Act amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants' Paragraph IV certification notice, sent before the FDA had accepted their Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for filing, was improper and premature. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute requires notice only after the FDA acknowledges receipt of the ANDA, and denied the defendants' motion to amend their counterclaim. The reasoning centered on the plain language of 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(ii), which distinguishes between notices for initial applications and amendments, requiring FDA filing acceptance for the former.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this antitrust class action, direct purchasers of automotive refinishing paint alleged that manufacturers including DuPont, BASF, PPG, Sherwin-Williams, and Akzo conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices during 1993-2000 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted final approval to partial settlements with PPG ($23 million) and Sherwin-Williams ($16 million), bringing the total recovered for the class to $105.75 million, and also approved the proposed plan for distributing settlement funds. Approval followed preliminary approval, class notice, a fairness hearing, and the withdrawal of all objections, with the court finding the settlements fair, adequate, and reasonable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) after prior approvals of settlements with the other defendants. The court further resolved disputed claims by authorizing distributions to qualifying claimants and barring others.

business & regulatory

This case involves employees of The Chubb Institute who claimed they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, seeking certification as a collective action for unpaid wages and related violations. After The Chubb Corporation was dismissed from the case in 2005 when plaintiffs failed to oppose its motion or conduct discovery on its involvement, plaintiffs later moved to amend their complaint to reinstate it as a defendant. The court denied the motions for leave to amend, finding that plaintiffs had been given prior opportunities to address the issue, that the dismissal operated as a binding decision under principles akin to res judicata or law of the case, and that undue delay and other factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) justified denial. The court also rejected arguments for deferring decision until after the opt-in period for additional plaintiffs, noting that opt-in participants are bound by prior rulings in the action.

labor & employmentprocedure

This multidistrict litigation case involved a complaint by Atlantic Auto Collision, Inc., an indirect purchaser of automotive refinishing paint, asserting class claims under New York's Donnelly Act (antitrust statute) and Consumer Protection Act against paint manufacturers for alleged price-fixing from 1993 to 2000. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. It held that the Donnelly Act claim lacked subject matter jurisdiction because N.Y. CPLR 901(b) bars class actions seeking penalties or treble damages under that statute. The Consumer Protection Act claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim, as the alleged anticompetitive price-fixing was not consumer-oriented conduct or deceptive acts directed at the public under GBL § 349.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Love v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., plaintiff Jonathan Love sued LSAC under Title III of the ADA after being denied extra time on the LSAT due to claimed ADHD and a learning disability affecting processing speed. Following a bench trial, the court made findings of fact based on expert testimony, test scores, and documentation, concluding that the plaintiff's evidence failed to show a substantial limitation in a major life activity as required by the ADA. The court discounted outlier scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, noted the plaintiff's average-range LSAT performance without accommodations and lack of prior formal accommodations on other exams, and determined that his impairments did not meet the statutory threshold for disability accommodations on the standardized test. The decision turned on the requirement that any limitation be substantial when compared to the average person, leading to judgment for the defendant.

civil rights

In this case, a homeowner who had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy sued her mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo, after the servicer included previously undisclosed attorney's fees and costs in a 2004 payoff statement; the plaintiff paid the full amount and then brought a class action alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Bankruptcy Code's § 506, breach of contract, and Pennsylvania unfair trade practices law. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Bankruptcy Code claim because § 506 does not create a private right of action and the Third Circuit's Joubert decision foreclosed using § 105 to imply one. The court allowed the FDCPA claim to proceed after finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the servicer qualified as a debt collector, and it addressed related issues concerning the mortgage contract and state-law claims without dismissing them at this stage.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure