By way of relevant background, on March 30, 2001, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the above-named defendants violated his civil right to be free from unlawful arrest and seizure, in relation to his arrest on March 30, 1999, for alleged violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device & Cosmetic Act, 35 Pa.C.S. §§780-113. The plaintiff bases his claim upon “blatant misrepresentations and significant omissions contained within Defendants’ Affidavit of Probable Cause.”
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2012, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
3:01cv2229 COLLINS v. TRL, INC.Judge:File:
Plaintiff has brought a sexual harassment/hostile work environment lawsuit against his former employer. Plaintiff asserts same-sex sexual harassment. He worked for the defendant as a trailer mechanic beginning on October 27, 1999. Def. Ex . A, Plaintiff’s Deposition (hereinafter “Pl. Dep.”) at 21. During his first week on the job, which was a week of training, Allen Clark served as the plaintiff ’s supervisor. Id. at 24. On the first day of the job, Plaintiff states that Clark asked him if he was a homosexual. Id. at 52. Plaintiff informed Clark that he was not. Id. at 52-54. After the initial week , the plaintiff and Clark did not work the same shift. However, there was be some overlap in the hours that they were at work . Id. at 32.
3:02-CV-0831 #2 USA v. 2001 HONDA ACCORD EX VIN #1HGCG22561A035829Judge:File:
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion for a Stay filed pursuant to Rule 8(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1355. (Doc. 31). The United States seeks an Order to Stay the Order entered on January 30, 2003 (the “January 2003 Order”). In that Order, this Court granted summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Claimant Kimberly A. Marckesano, a.k.a. Claire P. Marckesano (“Claimant” or “Marckesano”), and granted Claimant’s motion to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29). The January 2003 Order thus permitted Claimant to recover the subject of the in rem forfeiture action, a 2001 Honda Accord EX VIN# 1HGCG22561A035829 (“the Honda”). (Id.) On February 3, 2003, the United States appealed the January 2003 Order, and now requests that we stay the judgment pending the appeal in order to assure the preservation of the condition and value of the Honda. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Stay is DENIED.
1:CR-02-146 USA v. GRASS, et al.Judge:File:
On June 21, 2002, a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania issued a thirty-seven count indictment against Defendants, former officers and directors for the Rite Aid Corporation. In Counts 26 through 29 of the Indictment, the Government charges Defendants with four counts of wire fraud. The accusations arise out of the following actions: (1) the transfer of approximately $2.6 million from a Rite Aid account at Chase Manhattan Bank into an account belonging to CCA Associates, Inc. (“CCA”), a subsidiary of a partnership owned by Defendant Grass and his brother-in-law (Count 26); (2) the transfer of approximately $898,000 from Rite Aid to Defendant Grass as a bonus for Rite Aid’s performance during its fiscal year (“FY”) 1998 (Count 27); (3) the transfer of approximately $337,000 to Defendant Brown as a bonus for FY 1998 (Count 28); (4) the transfer of approximately $300,000 to Defendant Bergonzi as a bonus for FY 1998 (Count 29). Based on these allegations, the Government, in Count 32 of the Indictment, asserts that it is entitled to a criminal forfeiture of Defendants’ assets derived from the fruits of the alleged wire frauds. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A). On September 4, 2002, Defendants moved to dismiss that count pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B).
3:02-CV-2276 CARRICK v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.File:
Plaintiff Richard Carrick filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on November 21, 2002 against Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. alleging various state law claims.1 Defendant removed the action to federal court. (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for remand to state court. (Doc. 8.) The Court heard oral arguments on February 24, 2003. This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Because the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.
3:CV-04-0283 NICKENSON LOUIS-MARTIN v. THOMAS RIDGE, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al.File:
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Nickenson Louis-Martin’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 1.) I find that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I further find that because the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in ruling Petitioner’s Convention Against Torture claim was abandoned, Petitioner cannot be removed from the United States. I will vacate the Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand the matter to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further proceedings to determine whether Mr. Louis-Martin is eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
1:CV:02-1413 BEY v. IRSFile:
Before this court are: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint alleging improper taxation of his wages by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and his employer, the United States Postal Service, (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary restraining order and for temporary and permanent injunctions, (3) Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation concerning the motion for preliminary retraining order, (4) Plaintiff’s objections thereto, (5) Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (6) Plaintiff’s motion of refusal for fraud of respondents motion to dismiss, and (7) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons that follow, the Court will overrule the Plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation, adopt the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, deny the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
1:CV-02-2117 IPJIAN v. CONAWAY, et al.File:
Plaintiffs filed suit for personal injuries resulting from a car accident in Pennsylvania on November 20, 2001. Plaintiffs brought their case in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County on October 23, 2002. Defendant Conanway filed notice of removal in this Court on November 20, 2002. Plaintiffs’ complaint established diversity of the parties and demanded damages in “an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, plus costs and interest." Following an examination of the complaint and a telephone conference with the parities, this Court remanded the action to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction based on an inadequate amount in controversy. Following the telephone conference but before the order of remand issued, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Defendant CTS Capital Corporation, a New Jersey company. Defendants now move for reconsideration of the remand.
1:CV-01-930 SCHORR v. BOROUGH OF LEMOYNE, et al.File:
Plaintiffs’ decedent, Ryan K. Schorr, (“Schorr”), suffered from bipolar disorder. Schorr’s condition deteriorated shortly before November 18, 2000, and his roommate and family applied for his involuntary committal pursuant to § 302 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. A crisis intervention worker employed by Holy Spirit Hospital took and evaluated the application, and caused an order for involuntary commitment to be issued. The worker then contacted the Cumberland County Control Unit and arranged for West Shore Regional Police Department officers to detain Schorr pursuant to the commitment order and related warrant.
3:CV 02-2019 EMIL v. UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICAFile:
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff Charles L. Emil worked as a boiler tender for UGI Electric Utilities from 1982 until May, 2001. Plaintiff was a covered beneficiary under a group long-term disability benefits policy issued by UNUM through his employer.
Plaintiff was hospitalized between July 30 and August 8, 1996 due to the onset of angina. He underwent cardiac catheterization and ultimately a coronary arterial bypass graft surgery in 1996. Following a recovery period, Plaintiff returned to work. In May 2001, Plaintiff experienced a new on set of cardiac symptoms including angina. He underwent cardiac catheterization which revealed a lesion in the right coronary artery. He then underwent a stenting procedure. Plaintiff’s treating physicians have not yet released him to return to work.