In this private class action against Kid Brands, Inc, and its officers, a private shareholder's pleading requirements are examined, and clarified.
Recently in Property Law Category
Earlier this week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with an issue of first impression: whether state tort claims, brought by private property owners against an in-state source of pollution, were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The district court found that the claims were preempted.
The Third Circuit disagreed, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Double Eagle gold coins are extremely rare and extremely valuable. The only Double Eagle that is legally-owned by a private collector set the winning bidder back $7.6 million in a 2002 auction.
Last year, a Philadelphia family went to court to argue that the government couldn't keep 10 Double Eagles they found in their father's safe deposit box because it couldn't prove that the coins had been stolen, The New York Times reports. The jury disagreed.
Now, the family wants the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the case after a federal judge recently upheld the jury verdict, according to The Associated Press. That seems like a wise move: The coins are collectively worth almost $80 million.
Here’s some news on the Delaware River channel dispute.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has chimed in, upholding prior rulings by federal district courts in Trenton (NJ) and Wilmington (DE). The ruling opens the door to the continuation of the deepening project. The project would deepen the channel from 40 feet to 45 feet, a move that was opposed by some environmental groups, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Sports arenas often encounter a Velveteen Rabbit problem; eventually, the teams that love theses arenas want something newer, bigger, and flashier. The old arenas are abandoned, forgotten, and finally demolished.
The Pittsburgh Civic Arena, fondly known as the Igloo, suffered a similar Velveteen Rabbit fate. Workers began demolishing the Igloo on Monday after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency motion for injunction to delay demolition last Friday.
The Igloo, opened in 1961, was the retractable-roof marvel that served as the Pittsburgh Penguins home for 43 years. In August 2010, the Penguins moved across the street to their new arena, the Consul Energy Center. Last September, the Igloo’s owner, Sports and Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County (SEA), voted to demolish the structure.
In re: Rodriguez, 09-2724, concerned a challenge to the district court's affirmance of a Bankruptcy Court's determination that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide) did not have a pre-petition claim against the debtors and thus did not violate the automatic stay when it recalculated the debtors' post-petition escrow payments on their mortgage account to include certain pre-petition escrow arrears.
In re: Cmty. Bank of N. Virginia & Guaranty Nat'l Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortgage Loan Litig., 08-3621, concerned a challenge to the district court's decisions certifying the "settlement only" nationwide class action and approving the class settlement, in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging predatory home equity lending scheme involving two banks and a company that purchased second mortgage loans from them.
Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 09-3753, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a state-run juvenile detention center and several of its staff members, claiming various constitutional violations for sustaining a tragic spinal cord injury while attempting to make a tackle during a "pick-up" football at the center.
Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 09-1087, involved a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to compel action that they claim was unlawfully withheld by HUD. In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of HUD, the court held that section 311 did apply to HUD's management and disposition of the property at issue in this case. The court also held that HUD failed to make a determination that the property was not feasible for continued assistance and therefore failed to comply with the terms of section 311. Lastly, the grant of summary judgment on the issue of the cause of the displacement of the tenants is improper, and the matter is remanded for additional fact-finding on the issues of whether the tenants were displaced due to a federally financed project and, if so, whether the tenants who were entitled to relocation assistance at Uniform Relocation Act (URA) levels received such assistance.
In Jones v. ABN Ambro Mortgage Group, Inc., No. 08-2353, the Third Circuit dealt with a plaintiffs' suit against mortgage loan companies asserting claims for a declaratory judgment, negligence, and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), arising from a mortgage loan-servicing Ponzi scheme. First, the court held that the plaintiffs' negligence claim was properly dismissed as the duty imposed on the defendants in this case was by contract rather than by "law as a matter of social policy." Second, the court ruled that the district court correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under RESPA because the perpetrator of the Ponzi scheme was not a loan "servicer" under RESPA. Lastly, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for leave to amend.
Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke Lenni Lenape Nation v. Corzine, No. 08-2775, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal sua sponte for lack of standing, of an Indian Tribe's suit under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. section 187, seeking possession of land in New Jersey, and denial of an intervenor's Rule 19 motion to dismiss. The court held that because the district court issued an opinion on the intervenor's Rule 19 motion when it lacked jurisdiction because there was no longer a live case or controversy once the district court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action for lack of standing, the judgment dismissing the intervenor's Rule 19 motion is vacated.
Lastly, in C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., No. 08-3630, the court faced a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a school district and denial of plaintiff-parents' claim for reimbursement of private school tuition and other related costs for their disabled son under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
First, the court held that the school district's failure to have and Individualized Educational Program (IEP) in place on the first day of classes did not deprive the child of a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE), and thus, reimbursement on this basis was properly denied. Second, the court held that the district court properly rejected the argument that any notice deficiencies rise to the level of substantive harm. Third, the court also affirmed the district court's denial of parents' request for tuition reimbursement on equitable grounds as unreasonable parent conduct warrants equitable reduction of an award under the IDEA. Finally, the court rejected the parents' claim that the district court erred in failing to separately address their claim that the conduct of the Hearing Panel violated their rights to procedural due process.