FindLaw Opinion Summaries - 3rd Circuit COA

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

Gardner v. Grandolsky, No. 09-1742

2009-10-26T22:18:05Z

District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief is affirmed as the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)articulated sufficient rationale for 28 C.F.R. section 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) to satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standard set forth in APA section 706(2)(A). Furthermore, although the BOP's public safety rationale was not explicit in the Federal Register notices for the 1997 or 2000 regulations, the rationale may reasonably be discerned from the regulatory history and attendant litigation.

Read Gardner v. Grandolsky, No. 09-1742

Appellate Information

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

(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-06127) District Judge: Renee Marie Bumb.

Opinion Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Before: Fisher, Jordan, and Van Antwerpen, Circuit Judges

Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Albert Gardner

Counsel for Appellee: Paul A. Blaine, Office of the United States Attorney

US v. McGeehan, No. 05-1954

2009-10-22T22:36:15Z

District court's conviction of a publicly-funded non-profit organization's president and vice-president for honest services mail and wire fraud, arising from personal use of funds that were to be used for a Navy project, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Ben Franklin Technology Center (BFTC) counts because a superseding indictment made out the necessary elements of honest services fraud; and 2) district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the Navy counts as there are no allegations in the indictment suggesting the presence of legally cognizable fiduciary duties owed by BFTC to the Navy.

Read US v. McGeehan, No. 05-1954

Appellate Information

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

(D.C. Criminal Nos. 03-cr-0125-1 & 03-cr-0125-2)

District Judge: Honorable David Stewart Cercone

Opinion Filed October 22, 2009

Judges

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

Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: John A. Knorr, Stephen H. Begler

Counsel for Appellee: Michael L. Ivory, Laura S. Irwin

US v. Rigas, No. 08-3218

2009-10-21T22:43:36Z

In a case involving the founder of Adelphia and his son, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss conspiracy charges in a Pennsylvania indictment, claiming that their conviction for conspiracy and substantive fraud counts in the Southern District of New York violated their right to be free from double jeopardy, is remanded as 18 U.S.C section 371 creates a single statutory offense and defendants established a prima facie case that there was only one conspiratorial agreement. However, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss tax evasion charges in the Pennsylvania Indictment is affirmed.

Read US v. Rigas, No. 08-3218

Appellate Information

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

(No. 05-cr-00402)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III.

Opinion Filed October 21, 2009

Judges

Before: Rendell, Fuentes, and Roth, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Fuentes, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Lawrence G. McMichael, Matthew P. Faranda-Diedrich, Patrick M. Northern, Joseph U. Metz, Dilworth Paxson

Counsel for Appellee: George J. Rocktashel, Martin C. Carlson, Office of the United States Attorney, Lorna N. Graham, Office of the United States Attorney

Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 08-2924

2009-10-15T21:14:20Z

District court's orders granting defendant-Lloyd's motion to compel arbitration of a disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance agreements and denying plaintiff-Century's motion to vacate an arbitration panel's subsequent award in favor of Lloyd's is affirmed where: 1) district court properly compelled arbitration of the dispute arising from the retrocessional agreements over Lloyd's failure to pay declaratory judgment expenses that Century had paid to its reinsured under reinsurance treaties; and 2) the district court properly denied Century's motion to vacate the arbitration award under 9. U.S.C. section 10(a)(3) as the arbitrators' decision to exclude evidence plaintiff proffered based on the evidence's irrelevance was well within their authority in conducting the arbitration.

Read Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 08-2924

Appellate Information

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

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-6004)

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

Opinion Filed October 15, 2009

Judges

Before: McKee, Hardiman, and Greenberg, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Greenberg, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Carter G. Phillips, William M. Sneed, Melanie Jo Triebel, Sidley Austin LLP; Lawrence Nathanson

Counsel for Appellee: Mark J. Hill, Mark J. Hill & Associates, John M. Wulfers, Hugh S. Balsam, Susan P. Jordan, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

US v. Fullmer, No. 06-4211

2009-10-14T21:50:44Z

District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), 18 U.S.C. section 43 (2002) and other crimes, arising from animal rights activists' claims of animal abuse committed by a research corporation located in the United Kingdom, is affirmed where: 1) defendants' convictions for conspiracy to violate the AEPA is affirmed as the AEPA is neither unconstitutional on its face nor unconstitutional as applied; 2) there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants on all charges involving interstate stalking, and 3) the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all other respects as there were no flaws in the jury instructions. Finally, the case is remanded as the district court erred when it failed to devise a payment schedule for the $1,000,001 in restitution.

Read US v. Fullmer, No. 06-4211

Appellate Information

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

(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cr-00373)

District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

Opinion Filed October 14, 2009

Judges

Before: Fuentes and Fisher, Circuit Judges, and Ditter, District Judge

Opinion by Fuentes, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: H. Louis Sirkin, Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz LLP; Robert G. Stahl, Laura K. Gasiorowski, Stahl Farella & Sarokin; Peter Goldberger, Robert A. Obler, Paul J. Hetznecker, Andrew F. Erba, Williams Cuker & Berezofsky; Hal K. Haveson, Haveson & Otis.

Counsel for Appellee: Glenn J. Moramarco, George S. Leone, Assistant United States Attorney

In re: Diet Drugs Prod. Liability Litig., No. 08-2363

2009-10-08T22:26:01Z

In multidistrict mass tort litigation concerning appetite suppressant drugs commonly known as fen-phen, district court's final award of attorneys' fees entered on behalf of class counsel is affirmed where: 1) the fee proceedings were amply transparent under the jurisdiction's precedent; 2) given the duration of the litigation and the extraordinary efforts of class counsel, the amount of award, although extraordinarily large, is not excessive in this extraordinary case; and 3) while there are some reservations regarding the allocation of the assessments between the downstream opt-out claimants and the initial opt-out and the primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) claimants, the district court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning the award as it did.

Read In re: Diet Drugs Prod. Liability Litig., No. 08-2363

Appellate Information

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

(D.C. No. 99-cv-20593)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

Opinion Filed October 8, 2009

Judges

Before: Sloviter, Ambro, and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Jordan, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Howard J Bashman, Brian S. Riepen, Raymond W. Valori

Counsel for Appellee: Sol H. Weiss, Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley; Charles R. Parker, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell; Arnold Levin, Michael D. Fishbein, Laurence S. Berman, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman