Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Service Electric's Motion For Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction. (Doc. 38.1.) Plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the exclusive franchise right to operate a cable television system within the municipal boundaries of Defendant City of Hazleton, currently held by Plaintiff, remains valid. The motion will also be granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction preventing Defendant from implementing any franchise that is inconsistent with the exclusivity of the franchise currently held by Plaintiff. The motion will be denied in all other respects. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2016, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
3:04-CV-622 SERVICE ELECTRIC CABLEVISION, INC. v. CITY OF HAZLETONFile:
1:05-CR-135 USA v. WHITEJudge:File:
Granville White has appealed from a judgment of conviction imposed by Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13. On August 11, 2004, White was arrested at the New Cumberland Army Depot (“Army Depot”) for driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended due to a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. Judge Smyser imposed a sentence of 75 days imprisonment, but White has remained on bond pending a determination of his appeal.White makes only one argument in support of his appeal: that the government presented insufficient evidence to establish an essential element of the offense charged, namely, that he was driving his motor vehicle on a “highway” or “trafficway” at the time he was stopped at the Army Depot.
3:CV-03-1803 FLOOD, et al. v. MAKOWSKI, et al. (3)File:
Motion of Third-Party Merrill Lynch Defendants to Dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI of Third-Party Complaint.
3:04-CV-0670 FOLEY v. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationJudge:File:
Here we consider Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion’s Report and Recommendation in which he recommends we deny Plaintiff’s appeal of Defendant’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 14), and , Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. 15).
Therefore, this matter is ripe for disposition. Because Plaintiff filed objections, we will make a de novo determination regarding the matters to which Plaintiff has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that this matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration.
3:CV-03-1803 FLOOD, et al. v. MAKOWSKI, et al. (2)File:
Presently before the Court are two motions to treat counterclaims as affirmative defenses, one filed by Stephen Flood and The Luzerne County Retirement Board (hereinafter the Board) (Doc. 256.1) and the other filed by the Luzerne County Retirement Fund1 (hereinafter the Fund) (Doc. 259.1). I will grant the portion of the motion requesting dismissal of the counterclaim against Stephen Flood for intentional interference with contract2 because all of the alleged actions by Mr. Flood were while he was acting as an agent of a party to the contract. I will deny the remainder of the motions -because indemnity and contribution are properly classified as counterclaims.
4:03-0676 BARRA v. WHITE ASH LAND ASSOCIATIONJudge:File:
On April 25, 2003, the plaintiffs initiated the instant action in which they seek a declaratory judgment to order the defendant to: (1) allow them to backfill mine pits on a certain tract of land known as the “Bliss tract” located in Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, with fly-ash material; and (2) grant its consent to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, (“DEP”), Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, for this procedure.
3:04-CV-1253 LUCACIU v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.File:
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 17.) I will deny Defendant’s motion because the hills and ridges doctrine does not apply and there are genuine issues of material fact whether Defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the loading dock area. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1:CR-02-146-02 USA v. BROWNJudge:File:
Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Bail Pending Appeal (Doc. 772). In the motion, Defendant offers five issues that he asserts justify his release from incarceration during appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). The court recently granted Defendant’s motion in part. (See Doc. 784.) Specifically, the court concluded that its decision to rule the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) unconstitutional as applied to this case in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) presented a substantial question of law that could have resulted in a significant modification of Defendant’s sentence. The court stayed Defendant’s sentence until the Supreme Court issued its anticipated decision regarding Blakely’s impact on the Guidelines and deferred ruling on the remaining four issues in Defendant’s motion.
1:CV-04-2677 HIGH RIVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., et al.Judge:File:
Before the court is Defendants Richard C. Perry and Perry Corp.’s (the “Perry Defendants”) Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 8). The Perry Defendants request the court to transfer this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York or, in the alternative, to the Western District of Pennsylvania. As explained more fully below, the court finds that this action could have been brought in the Southern District of New York and that the balance of factors strongly favors transferring the case to that forum. Thus, the Perry Defendants’ motion will be granted.
3:CV-03-1803 FLOOD, et al. v. MAKOWSKI, et al.File:
The present action focuses on the events leading up to and surrounding the investment contracts made by the Luzerne County Retirement Board and Board members during the period of 1988 and 2002. Plaintiffs allege that various Board members engaged in a pay-to-play scheme in which contracts to invest or manage pension plan assets were awarded in exchange for campaign contributions to various Board members’ reelection campaigns.