Presently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Medtronic, Inc, Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations, Co, and Medtronic Logistics, LLC. (collectively “Medtronic”) (Doc. 9). Plaintiff Jason Silver brings seven counts against Medtronic arising out of the alleged malfunction of a Medtronic device, the SynchroMed II. (Doc. 1). The Motion has been fully briefed (Docs. 11, 14, 15) and is therefore ripe for our review. For the reasons that follow, the Motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.
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.
United States of America v. Helene Mitchell
Defendant Helene Mitchell (“Mitchell”) pled guilty in December of 2006 to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). Because Mitchell had three or more qualifying prior convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA” or “the Act”), she received a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years‟ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Mitchell presently moves the court for vacatur of her fifteen-year sentence in light of the United States Supreme Court‟s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which invalidated the ACCA‟s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2557. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant Mitchell‟s motion (Doc. 83) and schedule resentencing forthwith.
1:15-cv-457 Keyes and Yox v. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, et al.The Motion asks the Court to amend or alter our Order of November 9, 2015, where we granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and found that Plaintiff Keyes was barred from raising his Second Amendment as-applied challenge by issue preclusion. In accordance with the standard of review applicable to a motion to dismiss, the following facts are derived from the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and are viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.Plaintiff Michael Keyes is a Master Trooper with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 7). Plaintiff Jonathan Yox is a State Correctional Officer at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. (Id., ¶ 8).Both Keyes and Yox were each once involuntarily committed for mental health concerns. Keyes was involuntarily committed as an adult at Holy Spirit Hospital in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on August 25, 2006, as a result of “imbibing in alcoholic beverages and making suicidal statements” as he was struggling through an “emotionally devastating” divorce. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 21). He was initially involuntarily committed pursuant to 50 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7302, allegedly in the absence of any due process, and then later, pursuant to 50 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7303. (Id.). He was released by September 8, 2006. (Id.). Keyes never threatened to use a firearm against himself or others. (Id., ¶ 22).Yox was involuntarily committed as a juvenile at York Hospital, in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, on March 30, 2006. (Id., ¶ 50). He had been emotionally devastated by his parents’ divorce and had begun cutting himself under the influence of an older girl. They also had made a suicide pact together. (Id., ¶¶ 48-50). He was also initially involuntarily committed pursuant to 50 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7302, allegedly in the absence of due process, and then later, pursuant to 50 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7303. (Id., ¶ 50). Yox was released by April 6, 2006. (Id.). In 2008, when he was 17, Yox enlisted in the U.S. Army. He honorably served until 2012, when he received an honorable discharge. (Id., ¶¶ 52-53). During his time in the military, Yox spent six and a half months in a combat zone in Afghanistan. (Id., ¶ 54). During his military service, Yox was trained to use, and did use, various kinds of firearms, including fully automatic rifles, machine guns, explosives, and grenade launchers. (Id., ¶ 55). Upon his return from Afghanistan, Yox was not recommended for further psychological evaluation after his deployment briefing. (Id., ¶ 56).
Johnson v. Wetzel, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrects, et al.Plaintiff Arthur Johnson ("Johnson" or ―Mr. Johnson‖) is a convicted murderer. He has been in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("the Department") since 1973, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. For the past thirty-six years, the Department has held Mr. Johnson in solitary confinement—his entire existence restricted, for at least twenty-three hours per day, to an area smaller than the average horse stall. Astoundingly, Mr. Johnson continues to endure this compounding punishment, despite the complete absence of major disciplinary infractions for more than a quarter century.Mr. Johnson initiated this cause to challenge his institutional exile as violative of the United States Constitution. Presently, Mr. Johnson moves the court to compel the Department to: (1) stop his interminable isolation and (2) release him to general population.
Roque De La Fuente v. Pedro A. Cortes, et al.
Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by Defendants Pedro A. Cortes and Jonathan Marks (collectively, “Defendants”). The Motion is filed in response to Plaintiff Roque de la Fuente’s Amended Complaint for Emergency Mandamus, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 4), filed on August 18, 2016. Due to the expedited nature of this proceeding and the close relation of the issues raised with matters of Pennsylvania election law, the Court requested that the parties brief the threshold issue of abstention on an accelerated schedule. We have now received a full complement of briefings (Docs. 11, 12, and 13) in response to the Motion and the Motion is accordingly ripe for the Court’s review. For the following reasons, the Court shall abstain and shall not proceed to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
Lang and Brown v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.On June 29, 2012, Lang filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against PHEAA. In his Complaint, Lang alleged that he and other PHEAA employees were required to arrive at work early to log in to various computer applications and perform other tasks so that they would be ready to handle calls at the beginning of their shifts. Lang alleged that he, and others similarly situated, were not paid for this time. PHEAA’s alleged failure to pay Lang and other employees for this time formed the factual basis for the two counts presented in Lang’s Complaint. In Count I, Lang alleged a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Count II of the Complaint alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. § 333.101, et seq.
Chesapeake Appalachia L.L.C. v. Edward M. Ostroski and Kathleen Ostroski
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II (Doc. 23) filed on April 29, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the Court shall grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and declare that the subject lease between Plaintiff and Defendants does not permit class arbitration.
Keyes and Yox v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, et al.On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs Michael L. Keyes, (“Mr. Keyes”), and Jonathan K. Yox, (“Mr. Yox”), filed a Complaint, alleging violations of their asserted Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. (Doc. 1). Count I of the Complaint contends that, as applied to Plaintiffs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) violates the Second Amendment. Count II alleges that, as applied to Mr. Yox, § 922(g)(4) violates the Second Amendment because Mr. Yox was under the age of 18 when he was involuntarily committed. Count III alleges that § 922(g)(4) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs. Lastly, Count IV alleges that § 922(g)(4) violates Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights secured under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief.
15-v-2362File:Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants, Penn State Hershey Medical Center (“Hershey”) and PinnacleHealth System (“Pinnacle”) (collectively, “the Hospitals”), from taking any steps towards consummating their proposed merger pending the completion of the FTC’s administrative trial on the merits of the underlying antitrust claims.
14-v-00450File:R.L., a minor, by and through his parents, Michael Lordan and Jill Lordan, commenced this action by filing a Complaint on March 11, 2014, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. (Doc. 1). The Complaint also includes a state law claim for violation of R.L.’s free speech rights under the Pennsylvania Code.