Presently before the Court are two partial motions dismiss the third-party complaints against Michael Morreale. (Docs. 257.1 and 258.1.) I will grant the motion to dismiss the indemnity claim brought by Defendants Makowski, Pizano, Crossin, and Jones (hereinafter Makowski et al.) because, as voting members of the Luzerne County Retirement Board, no trustee can be more responsible than any other trustee. I will dismiss the claim of intentional interference with contractual relations1 raised by ASCO Financial Group, Donald Williamson, Maria Williamson, Joseph Perfilio, and Michael Joyce (hereinafter ASCO et al.) because Michael Morreale was acting as an agent of the Luzerne County retirement plan. The accompanying request for punitive damages is therefore also dismissed, thus, Mr. Morreale’s motion to dismiss punitive damages is moot.
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:CV-03-1803 FLOOD, et al. v. MAKOWSKI, et al. (4)Judge:File:
3:03cv746 WHITSON v. SAFESKIN CORPORATION, INC., et al.File:
Plaintiff Jean Whitson was employed as a registered nurse at Hanover General Hospital in Hanover, Pennsylvania, from April 21, 1990 to June 25, 1997. As a nurse, she used and was exposed to natural rubber latex gloves. As a consequence of her exposure to latex gloves, Ms. Whitson has suffered a permanent hypersensitivity to products containing the natural latex protein. Ms. Whitson alleges that she was exposed and sensitized to natural rubber latex in gloves that were predominantly manufactured and/or distributed by Safeskin Corporation, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Medical (“defendants”).Plaintiffs commenced this action on December 29, 1997, by filing a complaint that asserts counts in Negligence, Strict Products Liability, Failure to Warn, Breach of Express and Implied Warranties, Fraudulent Concealment, and Loss of Consortium. On March 9, 2001, the Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered an Order granting in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that plaintiffs’ tort claims were time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations, and that plaintiffs’ express and implied warranty claims were similarly time-barred with respect to glove sales prior to December 27, 1993, based on Pennsylvania’s four-year statute of limitations governing warranty actions. Upon plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the Eastern District Court vacated its March 9, 2001 Order with respect to plaintiffs’ loss of consortium claim only.
3:03-0989 THOMAS v. THE LUZERNE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.Judge:File:
Pending before the court is “Defendants, Craig R. Bardell, M.D., Susan Day, P.A., and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Motion for More Definitive Statement and Motion to Strike.” (Doc. No. 3).On June 13, 2003, the plaintiffs, Christine Thomas, individually and as co-administratrix of the estate of Erin Finley, and Mark Thomas, as coadministrator of the estate of Erin Finley, filed this action against the abovenamed defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the plaintiffs set forth pendent state law claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death and survival.
3: 04-CV-0148 FAGIOLO v. SMITHJudge:File:
Prisoner seeks "Immediate Half-way House designation and Home Detention at his ten (10%) date."
3:03cv522 JONATHAN T. v. LACKAWANNA TRAIL SCHOOL DISTRICTFile:
Jonathan T. (“Jonathan”) was born on July 16 , 1981 and is now twenty-two years old. He attended the Lackawanna Trail School District (“school district”) from 1986 through November 1999. Jonathan has been diagnosed with a specific learning disability, emotional disturbance and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Jonathan asserts that his disabilities were not appropriately identified or remediated by the school district. Jonathan withdrew from school on November 22, 1999, at the age of eighteen.On May 2, 2002, at the age of twenty, Jonathan filed a request for an administrative special education due process hearing. On January 10, 2003, the Due Process Hearing Officer issued her Decision and Order dismissing the plaintiff’s case as untimely filed outside the statute of limitations. A Special Education Appeals Panel also concluded that Jonathan’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
3:CV-02-1910 MCKEE and JONES v. HART, et al.Judge:File:
Presently before the Court is Defendant Henry Hart, Wesley Rish, Albert Masland, James Sheehan, and Daniel Sattele’s (hereinafter Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiffs Dwight McKee and Allen Jones allege First Amendment retaliation in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Based upon a lack of specific facts showing that he spoke on a matter of public concern, I will grant Defendants’ motion with respect to Mr. McKee’s claim. As for Mr. Jones’ claim, I will grant the motion as it related to the claim against Henry Hart, but I will deny the motion in all other respects. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3:01cv2071 SHAWNEE HOLDINGS, INC. v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO.File:
Before the court for disposition is plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of witnesses John Retinger, David Farquharson, Bob Zagaski and William Geary at trial on February 10, 2004.
1:03-CV-0549 SIEGEL v. ABBOTTSTOWN BOROUGH and HAMILTON TOWNSHIPFile:
The plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on April 1, 2003. On May 20, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 4, 2003, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The plaintiff subsequently filed a third amended complaint.
3:02cv2152 NEUMEYER v. BeardFile:
According to a policy of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), prison visitor vehicles parked on facility grounds are subject to random searches after the owner or operator consents in writing. If a prison visitor refuses to provide written consent permitting SCIH corrections officers to search his or her vehicle, then the visitor will not be allowed to enter the prison to visit any prisoner on that day.On various dates, the plaintiffs visited Teresa Neumeyer’s father, Preston Pfeifly, at the SCIH. On May 28, 2001, and May 27, 2002, the plaintiffs’ vehicle was searched by SCIH corrections officers after it was parked on institutional property. Prior to the searches, Plaintiff Teresa Neumeyer had signed a “Consent To Search Vehicle” form, which gave her consent to havin g the ve hicle sea rched.Plaintiffs contend that having their vehicle subjected to search under these circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment. They have brought suit under 42 U.S. §1983 seeking declaratory injunctive relief but not damages. Defendants have moved for summary judgment arguing that as there is no dispute that the plaintiffs consented to both searches, the proper analysis must be made under the First Amendment’s right of association and that conditioning visiting prisoners on the visitor agreeing to permit searching their vehicle when parked on state correctional institution property is constitutional. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for summary judgment.
3:03cv1269 MILLER, et al. v. LEHIGH COAL & NAVIGATION CO.File:
Lehigh was in the anthracite coal business located in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. It ceased doing business in January 2001. The company was a contributing employer to the Fund, a multiemployer plan providing retirement benefits to employees of the anthracite coal industry under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter “ERISA”), as amended 28 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. The contributions to the Fund were in the form of royalties for each ton of anthracite coal produced for use or sale.
In the instant case, subsequent to Lehigh ceasing its business operation in January 2001, the Fund assigned it a withdrawal liability in the amount of $1,875,264, which was due in monthly installments for approximately 38 months. Lehigh has challenged this assignment of withdrawal liability through arbitration. Plaintiffs now seek to have the court order the defendant to make payments on the withdrawal liability until arbitration is completed.