This is a breach of contract matter as well as other claims brought in a complaint filed on July 9, 1999. (Doc. No. 1). The defendants answered and filed a counterclaim on August 3, 1999. (Doc. No. 6). This was followed by plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaim, on August 20, 1999. (Doc. No. 7). On September 30, 1999, the matter was referred, following consent of the parties, to a United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 14). Taking up the motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim, United States Magistrate Judge Raymond Durkin dismissed the counterclaim on January 28, 2000. (Doc. No. 16).
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.
4:99-1208 SAMPSON FIRE SALES, INC., et al. v. OAKS, et al.Judge:File:
1:CV-00-1034 NANYONGA v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, et. al,Judge:File:
Defendants, York County, York County Prison, Thomas Hogan and Christopher Reilly (the “York County Defendants”), have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to effect service upon them. They also request dismissal with prejudice because service on them now would be beyond the statute of limitations. We presume the motion is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). The Plaintiff has filed a cross-motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for enlargement of time to effect service.
Plaintiff, Yudaya Nanyonga, filed this civil rights action setting forth constitutional and state-law tort claims arising from treatment she received during her classification at the York County Prison as a detainee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Nanyonga names the INS and Doris Meissner, the INS Commissioner, (“the Federal Defendants”) as well as the York County Defendants. Hogan is the prison warden and Reilly is a member of the York County Board of Commissioners. Twenty-five John and Jane Does have also been named.
3:00-1606 OSTRANDER v. HORN, et al.Judge:File:
On May 17, 2000, defendants Horn and Chesney authorized thirty (30) CERT officers to conduct “a live exhibition/exercise3” at SCI Frackville within the Restricted Housing Unit, (“RHU”). With “invited civilians” looking on, the CERT officers forcefully extracted him from his cell and “carried/dragged” him to the RHU exercise area, where he was placed in a “cage” and left there with his hands cuffed behind his back. Approximately twenty (20) CERT officers, fully equipped with assorted weapons, were lined up against the wall in the exercise area, causing him to become fearful and emotionally distressed.
3:00cv266 CEBULA v. ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.File:
Before the court for disposition is a case where we must determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to $1,000,000.00 or $600,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage. The plaintiffs are Frank and Dawn Cebula, (hereinafter “plaintiffs”), and the defendant is Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. (hereinafter “defendant”). The parties agreed that both the defendant’s summary judgment motion and the merits of the plaintiff’s complaint would be addressed at a non-jury trial. A trial was held on November 22, 2000, addressing the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment complaint and the motion for summary judgment.2 At that time, the parties formally presented their recommended stipulated facts and their respective legal theories.
3:00cv1525 HEALTHAMERICA PENNSYLVANIA, INC., et al. v. SUSQUEHANNA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.File:
As alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, the facts are as follows: In 1994, the two dominant hospital systems in Northcentral Pennsylvania region (Providence Health System and North Central Pennsylvania Health System) merged to create Defendant Susquehanna Health S ystem (hereinafter “SHS”). The result of the merger was a single entity with overwhelming market power in the markets for inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
1:CV-99-0487 CLOVERLAND-GREEN SPRING DAIRIES, INC., et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA MILK MARKETING BOARD, et al. (2)Judge:File:
The instant action seeks a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of Pennsylvania’s Milk Marketing Law, 31 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 700j-101, et seq. (“PMML”), and certain provisions of Official General Orders A-890A and A-900, (i) violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and (ii) deprive Plaintiff of rights guaranteed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the minimum milk prices fixed pursuant to Orders A-890A and A-900.
3:99cv0526 ENDRES v. TECHNEGLAS, INC.File:
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Techneglas, Inc. from approximately 1986 until she was discharged on January 4, 1996 . During her tenure at Techneglas, plaintiff held various positions and was a member of Glass Molders, Pottery and Allied Worker’s International Union, Local 243. Plaintiff assumed the position of shipping coordinator in the defendant’s warehouse in February of 1994. As a shipping coordinator, plaintiff worked on third shift with a fork-lift driver, Robert Serovinski. The bulk of plaintiff’s complaint involves alleged harassing behavior by Serovinski.
3:00CV-0591 ZALINSKI v. OSRAM SYLVANIA, INC. et al.Judge:File:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on January 2, 2001. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed the above-captioned matter asserting in his complaint filed March 31, 2000 that he was unjustly denied pension and severance benefits and was induced to resign by his long-time employer, Osram Sylvania and its agents. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges these claims under Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”) as well as under Pennsylvania common law regarding breach of contract, detrimental reliance, promissory and equitable estoppel, and fraud.
3:00CV301 EISENBERG v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITYFile:
Defendant Penn State University is an institution of higher learning with twenty-four campuses. Plaintiff commenced employment with the defendant in 1972 as an engineering instructor at its Hazleton campus and has worked there since. Plaintiff’s initial annual salary was $9,288.00. Plaintiff has received annual salary increases every year of his employment with the defendant. However, he claims that his salary has always been less than the average salary of his peers, and the salary increments did not always reflect actual contributions he has made to the university for a given year.
3:00-CV-1010/CR-90-308-1 RISTAGNO v. USAJudge:File:
Pending before the Court is a motion for habeas corpus relief filed on June 5, 2000 by Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 along with a “Memorandum of Law” in support of his motion to vacate his sentence.1 (Doc. 114). The Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing errors based on misinterpretations of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Government failed to file a response. In addition, the Petitioner filed an “Amended (informal) Brief” on December 29, 2000 (Doc. 116) in which he claims that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L.Ed.2d 435, makes his sentence improper. For the reasons set forth infra, we shall deny the petitioner’s habeas corpus motion.