You are here


The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to present, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Judge John E. Jones III

Presently pending before the Court in this wrongful death and survival action is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 220) and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 252) of Defendant AVCO Corporation on behalf of its Lycoming Engines Division (collectively “Lycoming”). The Motions have been fully briefed (Docs. 223, 235, 249, 257, 269, 276, 292, 296) and are therefore ripe for our review. For all of the reasons fully articulated herein, we will grant in part and deny in part Lycoming’s Motions.

The case sub judice involves The Harrisburg Authorities’ (“THA”) project to upgrade and modernize the Harrisburg Materials, Energy, Recycling and Recovery Facility, a trash-to-steam waste treatment facility (“the incinerator”). (Doc. 35 ¶¶ 1, 10). To finance the incinerator project, THA issued a series of bonds, including its Guaranteed Resource Recovery Facility Revenue Bonds, Series D of 2003 (the “2003D Bonds”), Guaranteed Federally Taxable Resource Recovery Facility Revenue Bonds, Series E of 2003 (the “2003E Bonds”), and Guaranteed Federally Taxable Resource Recovery Facility Revenue Bonds, Series F of 2003 (the “2003F Bonds”), under a Trust Indenture dated December 1, 2003 (the “Retrofit Indenture”) between THA and Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, National Association. (Id. ¶ 11). Dauphin County (“Dauphin” or the “County”), recognizing the countywide benefits of the project and its responsibilities for municipal waste planning, entered into agreements with THA to provide secondary guarantees for the 2003D Bonds and 2003E Bonds, for a total amount not to exceed $110,980,000. (Id. ¶ 12).

THA contracted with Barlow Projects, Inc. (“Barlow”) to design the incinerator, retrofit the facility, and provide state-of-the-art “Combustion Technology.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) The agreement between THA and Barlow was memorialized in three separate contracts in May 2004. In the “Equipment Contract,” THA agreed to pay almost $52 million for the proprietary and other specialized equipment necessary to retrofit the incinerator. (See id. ¶ 18(I)). In the “Services Contract,” THA agreed to pay almost $13 million to Barlow for engineering, construction, and start-up of the incinerator. (See id. ¶ 18(II)). Finally, in the “Sublicensing Agreement,” THA purchased a nonexclusive license for the use Barlow’s proprietary Combustion Technology which was to be installed in the incinerator. (See id. ¶ 18(III)).

The retrofit of the incinerator was originally scheduled to be completed in twenty-four months, and the facility was to be restarted in late 2005. (See id. ¶ 21). This was not to be.

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 117), Plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, (doc. 137), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (Doc. 163). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment shall be granted in part and denied in part, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants’ motion to strike shall be denied.

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) of Defendants Cumberland Valley School District and William Harner, Superintendent. For the reasons detailed herein, we shall grant in part and deny in part said Motion.

Before the Court in this declaratory judgment action are the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and, alternatively, Rule 14(a)(4) Motion to Strike, (Doc. 40), of Third-Party Defendant Miller, Kistler, Campbell, Miller, Williams, and Benson, Inc. (“Miller Kistler”) and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and, alternatively, Rule 14(a)(4) Motion to Strike, (Doc. 41), of Third-Party Defendant Rhoads and
Sinon, LLP (“Rhoads”). Both Motions have been fully briefed and are therefore ripe for disposition. For the reasons articulated herein, the Court will grant Third-Party Defendant Miller Kistler’s Motion to Dismiss and deny Third-Party Defendant Rhoads’ Motion to Dismiss.

Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner

Presently before the court is a motion (Doc. 61) to suppress evidence filed by defendants Alcide Fraguela-Casanova (“Fraguela”) and Juan Carlos Almaguer (“Almaguer”). Fraguela and Almaguer contend that Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Manueal DeLeon (“Corporal DeLeon”) violated their Fourth Amendments rights by unlawfully seizing them on October 25, 2010. For the following reasons, the court will grant the motion.

Presently before the court is a motion (Doc. 28) to suppress evidence filed by defendant Ronny Getgen (“Getgen”). Getgen contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the improper issuance and execution of two search warrants. Getgen requests that the court suppress all physical evidence recovered pursuant to the search warrants and a statement allegedly made by Getgen during the execution of the first warrant. For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion.

One of the benefits of the myriad challenges to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereinafter “Health Care Act” or the “Act”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, is the distillation of relevant issues. As a threshold matter, I emphasize, as Judge Vinson emphasized in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2011 WL 285683 (N.D. Fla. 2011), that this case is not about whether the Health Care Act merely treats the symptoms or cures the disease which has so clearly afflicted our health care system. Nor is it about the exhaustive efforts of Congress to document and to project the increasing costs of health care services or to pinpoint discriminatory practices associated with pre-existing conditions.
Rather, this case concerns the precise parameters of Congress’s enumerated authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the issue is whether Congress can invoke its Commerce Clause power to compel individuals to buy insurance as a condition of lawful citizenship or residency. The court concludes that it cannot. The power to regulate interstate commerce does not subsume the power to dictate a lifetime financial commitment to health insurance coverage. Without judicially enforceable limits, the constitutional blessing of the minimum coverage provision, codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, would effectively sanction Congress’s exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure.

Judge Yvette Kane

On April 14, 2011, Ralph E. Hauck, Jr. was charged in a four count indictment for three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and one count of trespassing at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1793. (Doc. No. 1; see Doc. No. 42.) Defendant entered into a plea agreement on January 5, 2012. (Doc. No. 48.) On January 31, 2012, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count in the indictment – possession of a firearm by a convicted felon – before Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III (Doc. Nos. 53, 56). This Court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea on February 23, 2012 (Doc. No. 58), and sentenced Defendant on July 24, 2012 (Doc. No. 66).

Following receipt and consideration of Defendant Ralph E. Hauck, Jr.’s requests to modify the conditions of his supervised release and correct the record (Doc. No. 119; see Doc. Nos. 117-18, 120-23), this Court appointed Edward J. Rymsza to represent Defendant in this matter on September 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 124). Defendant, through his counsel, filed an unopposed motion to correct the record on November 21, 2016. (Doc. No. 127.)

Judge Malachy E. Mannion

On November 20, 2007, plaintiff Longview Fund loaned the sum of $800,000 (the “Loan”) to third party defendant All Staffing, Inc. (“All Staffing”) as evidenced by a promissory note dated November 20, 2011 (the “Note”). Defendant Stanley J. Costello (“S. Costello”), who was Chief Executive Officer of All Staffing, executed the Note on All Staffing’s behalf.