U.S. Third Circuit

Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phiadelphia Bd. of Educ., No. 07-4790

2009-11-21T00:38:15Z

In plaintiffs' suit against a school district on behalf of their daughter who suffers from cognitive and developmental disorders alleging that the district's failure to provide their daughter with appropriate eduction obstructed her intellectual growth, summary judgment for defendant favor is affirmed for the most part but a portion of its ruling is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court erred in determining that the plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act claim; and 2) plaintiffs did not waive their right to proceed directly under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.

Read Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phiadelphia Bd. of Educ., No. 07-4790

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Opinion Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Before: Barry, Fisher and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Fisher, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David J. Berney

Counsel for Appellee: Richard G. Turttle, Archer & Greiner

US v. Johnson, No. 08-3693

2009-11-18T23:23:59Z

Defendant's sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court is restricted to considering the materials outlined by the Supreme Court in Sheppard for the sole purpose of determining to which part of the Pennsylvania simple assault statute defendant actually pled guilty to; and 2) in the event the materials do not demonstrate the mens rea to which defendant pled guilty, his simple assault conviction cannot qualify as a crime of violence in this case in light of the government's representation that it does not seek to define that conviction as a crime of violence to the extent it is premised on reckless conduct.

Read US v. Johnson, No. 08-3693

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 08-cr-0082-001)

District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

Opinion Filed November 18, 2009

Judges

Before: Smith, Fisher and Nygaard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Fisher, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Renee Pietropaolo, Office of Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Appellee: Robert L. Eberhardt, Rebecca R. Haywood, Laura S. Irwin, Office of the US Attorney

Berg v. Obama, No. 08-4340

2009-11-14T00:05:39Z

In one of the so-called "birther" suits challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States based on claims that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not a natural born citizen of the United States, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because he suffered no injury particularized to him.

Read Berg v. Obama, No. 08-4340

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-08-cv-04083)

District Judge: Honorable Barclay Surrick

Opinion Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Before: Sloviter, Fuentes, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sloviter, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Philip J. Berg

Counsel for Appellee: Robert F. Bauer, Perkins Coie LLP; Joseph E. Sandler, Thomasenia P. Duncan, David Kolkler, Kevin Deeley, Steve N. Hajjar

In re: Madera, No. 08-2205

2009-11-13T23:59:01Z

In debtors' bankruptcy proceedings for defaulting on their loan, ruling upholding the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the creditors and its denial of debtors' motion to amend is affirmed where: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over debtors' rescission claim because that claim was inextricably intertwined with a Court of Common Pleas' foreclosure judgment; 2) there was an adequate basis for summary judgment on the Truth in Lending Act damages claim, specifically, that debtors failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they had prior title insurance in connection with the loan; and 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor's motion to amend as it was untimely.

Read In re: Madera, No. 08-2205

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-07-cv-01396)

District Judge: Honorable Knoll Gardner

Opinion Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Before: Sloviter, Fuentes, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sloviter, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David A. Scholl

Counsel for Appellee: Sandhya M. Feltes

Max v. Republican Comm. of Lancaster County, No. 08-4158

2009-11-13T23:19:17Z

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the defendants claiming violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and expression during a primary election campaign for judgeship on the County Court of Common Pleas, district court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as defendants are not state actors and their actions toward plaintiff were not state actions that would subject defendants to section 1983 claims.

Read Max v. Republican Comm. of Lancaster County, No. 08-4158

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-07-cv-04488)

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Before: Sloviter, Fuentes, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sloviter, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Paul A. Rossi, Robert M. Frankhouser, Jr., Kevin M. French, Hartman Underhill & Brubaker LLP.

Counsel for Appellee: Mark D. Schwartz

Pichler v. Unite, No. 08-2354

2009-11-13T23:12:04Z

In plaintiffs' class action suit against the defendant-union for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in obtaining their personal information in the union's efforts to unionize CINTAS, the largest domestic employer in the industrial laundry industry, district court's order denying a motion by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW)to modify a protective order that restricts access to certain records is affirmed as NRTW lack standing to request modification of the protective order because the records are not judicial records.

Read Pichler v. Unite, No. 08-2354

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Civ. No. 2-04-cv-02841)

District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

Opinion Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Before: McKee and Stapleton, Circuit Judges, and Irenas, Senior District Judge

Opinion by McKee, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: William L. Messenger, William J. Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Counsel for Appellee: Lawrence T. Hoyle, Arlene Fickler, Hoyle Fickler Herschel & Mathes

Solis v. Local 234, Transp. Workers Union, No. 09-1143

2009-11-02T11:38:20Z

In Labor Secretary's enforcement action under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. section 401, against Local 234 of the Transit Workers Union, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) because a union member's post-election protest was a valid exercise of an available remedy, his subsequent administrative complaint to the Secretary was timely; and 2) Secretary's LMRDA enforcement action based on that administrative complaint is judicially sound.

Read Solis v. Local 234, Transp. Workers Union, No. 09-1143

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 08-cv-1957)

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

Opinion Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Before: Barry, Fisher and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Jordan, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Michael P. Abate, Michael F. Hertz, Laurie Magid, Thomas M. Bondy, Christopher C. Fonzone, Michael S. Blume, Virginia A. Gibson, U.S. Department of Justice

Counsel for Appellee: Bruce Bodner, Kaufman, Coren & Ress, PC; Claiborne S. Newlin, Meranze & Katz

P.P. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., No. 08-2874

2009-11-02T11:28:22Z

In plaintiffs' case against the school district under the Individuals in Education Act (IDEA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, but its ruling with respect to the applicability of the Pennsylvania personal injury statute of limitations to the plaintiffs' claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is reversed.

Read P.P. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., No. 08-2874

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-04338)

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Before: Rendell, Fuentes, and Roth, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Rendell, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Dennis C. McAndrews, Gabrielle C. Sereni, McAndrews Law Offices

Counsel for Appellee: Jennifer Donaldson, Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams

Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819

2009-10-30T12:29:38Z

In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed.

Read Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

Opinion Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David A. Cortman, Joshua B. Bollinger, Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Lawrence G. Palladin, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee: Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter.

US v. Root, No. 08-2888

2009-10-29T21:30:52Z

District court's conviction of defendant for tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States is affirmed where: 1) upholding the government's inclusion of multiple years of evasion in a single count was proper; and 2) the government's charge was not impermissibly duplicitous because the statutory language does not prohibit the government's decision to charge defendant for multiple years in one count and because analysis of the concerns traditionally associated with duplicitous charges demonstrates that defendant was not prejudiced by that decision.

Read US v. Root, No. 08-2888

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00149)

District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller

Opinion Filed October 29, 2009

Judges

Before: McKee, Hardiman, and Greenberg, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Hardiman, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Michael J. Fischer, Robert A. Zauzmer, Office of the United States Attorney

Counsel for Appellee: Bradley D. Barbin

In Re: Constar Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 08-2461

2009-10-29T21:24:08Z

In plaintiffs' securities class action arising from their purchase of defendant's registered shares , district court's grant of the class certification is affirmed where the Rule 23 class certification standard applied by the district court was proper.

Read In Re: Constar Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 08-2461

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-05020)

District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig

Opinion Filed October 29, 2009

Judges

Before: Rendell, Fuentes, and Roth, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Rendell, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Steven B. Feirson, David W. Brown, Michael L. Kichline, Stuart T. Steinberg, Dechert; Jill M. Basinger, Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Counsel for Appellee: Eric A. Issacson, Joseph D. Daley, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, Laura S. Stein

Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 08-4334

2009-10-28T21:59:03Z

In plaintiffs-homebuyers' putative class action to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to section 8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of 1974, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as the plain language of RESPA section 8 indicates that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overarching allegation. Finally, plaintiffs are not barred by the filed rate doctrine as it simply does not apply in this case.

Read Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 08-4334

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03508)

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Before: Barry, Fisher, and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Barry, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer, Donna S. Moffa, Terrence S. Ziegler, Barroway, Topaz, Kessler, Meltzer & Check; Eric G. Calhoun, Travis & Calhoun

Counsel for Appellee: Christine N. Kohl, Michael J. Singer, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division.

G-I Holdings v. Reliance Ins. Co., No. 07-2510

2009-10-26T22:46:59Z

In plaintiff's claim for insurance policy coverage of its directors and officers for fraudulent conveyance in Reliance-defendant's liquidation and against Hartford, who had taken over claims administration for defendant and assumed some of its liabilities, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford is affirmed where: 1) the Hartford policy period does not include the amended Reliance policy period, and there is no basis to conclude that plaintiff could have reasonably expected its policy with Hartford to cover the Reliance policy; 2) the interrelated wrongful acts provision applies to bar coverage for the CCR and Claimants Committee actions under the Hartford policy; 3) other agreements do not make Hartford directly liable for the fraudulent conveyance actions; and 4) judicial estoppel does not apply to Hartford's invoking of the interrelated wrongful acts provision

Read G-I Holdings v. Reliance Ins. Co., No. 07-2510

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-06189)

District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

Opinion Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Ambro, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Anthony Bartell, McCarter & English; Stephen G. Weil, Jerold Oshinsky.

Counsel for Appellee: Arnold R. Gerst, Brad M. Weintraub, Weiner Lesniak, Lawrence J. Bistany, Celestine M. Montague, White & Williams

US v. Grier, No. 07-3507

2009-10-26T22:37:06Z

District court's decision to exercise its discretion to grant defendant a downward departure under USSG section 4A1.3 as to his criminal history category, but not with respect to his offense level, is affirmed as the district court properly applied the Guidelines when it held that it could not depart downward in offense level under section 4A1.3 on the basis of defendant's overstated criminal history. Furthermore, the district court adequately considered defendant's argument for a downward variance and the 37-month term of incarceration was substantively reasonable.

Read US v. Grier, No. 07-3507

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 06-cr-00173)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane.

Opinion Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Before: Sloviter and Hardiman, Circuit Judges, and Pollak, District Judge

Opinion by Hardiman, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: William A. Behe

Counsel for Appellee: Edward J. Rymsza

Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., No. 07-3876

2009-10-26T22:28:54Z

In plaintiff's suit against defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence arising from his investment in their microwave technology, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded as the district court's proximate cause analysis was in error as plaintiff produced enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant's misrepresentations were a substantial factor in causing his failed investment.

Read Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., No. 07-3876

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Civil No. 02-cv-02104)

District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab.

Opinion Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Before: Fisher, Chagares, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Chagares, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: John R. Gall, Philomena M. Dane, Christopher F.W. Haas, Kristen M. Blankley, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, LLP; John M. Mehren.

Counsel for Appellee: George E. Yokitis, Walter P. DeForest, Mindy J. Shreve, Deforest, Koscelnik Yokitis Kaplan & Berardinelli