Malibu Media, LLC, commenced the above-captioned action against John Doe, asserting one count of copyright infringement pursuant to the United States Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
You are here
The Middle District of Pennsylvania offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to present, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner
Defendant Kevin Coles moves the court to suppress evidence resulting from his detention and arrest on July 7, 2016, and statements made during an August 11, 2016 interrogation. (Docs. 67, 69). Coles also seeks to suppress all evidence gathered during execution of a search warrant at a residence located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 100). The court will grant in part and deny in part Coles’ motions.
Judge John E. Jones III
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Stefano Pessina, and George R. Fairweather (collectively, “Walgreens”), Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. 125), and Plaintiff’s, Jerry Hering (“Hering”), Joint Motion to Intervene by Lead Plaintiff and Putative Class Members Douglas S. Chabot, Corey M. Dayton, and Joel M. Kling.
Plaintiff Jerry Hering brings this action against Defendants Rite Aid Corporation, John T. Standley, David R. Jessick, Joseph B. Anderson, Jr., Bruce G. Bodaken, Kevin E. Lofton, Myrtle S. Potter, Michael N. Regan, Frank A. Savage, Marcy Syms (collective, the "Rite Aid Defendants"), and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Stefano Pessina, and George R. Fairweather (collectively, the "Walgreens Defendants"). Presently before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed by the Rite Aid Defendants, (Doc. 89), and the Walgreens Defendants, (Doc. 93). For the reasons that follow, we shall grant the Rite Aid Defendants’ motion and deny the Walgreens Defendants’ motion
Presently pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (the "Motion") (Doc. 15). On April 3, 2018, we granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Doc. 22). Plaintiffs represent a class of all Pennsylvania youth under the age of 21 who, now or in the future, are adjudicated dependent and have diagnosed mental health disabilities. Plaintiffs bring three claims against Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and Teresa Miller, as Acting Secretary of the DHS (collectively, Defendants), alleging systemic failures in the Pennsylvania Child Welfare and Medical Assistance programs.
On December 18, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this action, by and through their next friends, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges that DHS has failed to provide the required appropriate services to dependent children with diagnosed mental health disabilities in Pennsylvania. The following facts are derived from the complaint.
DHS, through the Child Welfare system and its Office of Medical Assistance Programs (“Medical Assistance”), is responsible for providing appropriate mental health care. (Id. at ¶ 3). The complaint paints a picture of the sad reality for various dependent youths in Pennsylvania. Many dependent children with mental disabilities end up in large, congregate facilities for years while they wait for appropriate placement from DHS. (Id. at ¶ 4). Others end up waiting for months or years in inappropriate settings, such as psychiatric hospitals, juvenile detention facilities, and residential treatment facilities (“RTFs”) while they wait for placement from DHS. (Id. at ¶ 5). Each of the named Plaintiffs in this action has been diagnosed with mental health disabilities and has been adjudicated dependent. (Id. at ¶ 9). They are all eligible for medical assistance from DHS. (Id. at ¶ 54).
Plaintiffs are Quan Vu and his wife, May Siew. (“Plaintiffs”). Defendants are Ski Liberty Operating Corp. and Snow Time, Inc., operating as Liberty Mountain Resort. (“Defendants”). This action arises out of a skiing accident at Liberty Mountain that left Mr. Vu severely injured. The complaint brings one count of negligence on behalf of Mr. Vu and one count of loss of consortium on behalf of Mrs. Siew, both alleging that the accident was caused by the Defendants’ negligence in maintaining the ski slope and failing to warn Mr. Vu of the slope’s hazardous condition.
Plaintiff Michael Keyes is a former U.S. Air Force Airman 1st Class and former Master Trooper with the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”). (Doc. 82, ¶ 1). Keyes was involuntarily committed as an adult to Holy Spirit Hospital from August 25, 2006 to September 8, 2006 after consuming numerous alcoholic beverages and making suicidal statements following an emotional divorce. (Id.). As a result of his involuntary commitment, Plaintiff lost his federal and state private capacity firearm rights by operation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c)(4) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).
Despite his loss of private capacity firearm rights, Keyes returned to the PSP after his hospitalization where he possessed and utilized firearms while on duty as a Master Trooper. (Id., at ¶ 3). Keyes received performance evaluations of “outstanding” and qualified in the top of his class with several firearms, including a fully automatic AR-15 select fire rifle, a Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun, a Sig Sauer 227 handgun, and a Glock 37 handgun. (Id.).
The facts of this case are uncomplicated and undisputed. They arise against the backdrop of claiming races – a common practice in the world of thoroughbred horse racing. In a claiming race, each horse in a given race is available to be purchased (or “claimed”) for a price posted before the race. Each horse in a single race will post for roughly the same price, which dissuades owners from entering strong horses to compete against a weaker field or risk losing a good horse for less than it is worth. This “leveling” of the field helps to ensure interesting, competitive races and fosters greater excitement for the local horse racing market. Through claiming races, owners have an effective way of buying and selling horses while racetracks enjoy a consistent stable of horses to race. More races of better quality leads to higher gambling revenues and a stronger industry. Pennsylvania, among other states, has implemented rules to regulate claiming races, including Rule 163.255, which is the subject of this lawsuit. Rule 163.255, as we will more fully discuss later, establishes what is known as “claiming jail,” which is a temporary limitation on where owners may race newly claimed horses.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on August 15, 2016, followed by an Amended Complaint on August 18, 2016. (Docs. 1, 4). Defendants initially filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on August 25, 2016. (Doc. 10). However, we stayed the case by Order dated September 14, 2016, (Doc. 15), pending resolution of unsettled state law in state court. Following a decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, we issued an Order lifting the stay on November 15, 2016. (Doc. 18). Defendants subsequently filed another Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on December 1, 2016. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on January 9, 2017, (Doc. 25), which we granted by Memorandum and Order on April 24, 2017. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 14, 2017. (Doc. 33). Defendants subsequently filed the present Motion to Dismiss on May 26, 2017. (Doc. 34). Defendants filed their supporting brief on June 8, 2017, (Doc. 37), Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on June 22, 2017, (Doc. 40), and Defendants filed their reply brief on June 30, 2017. (Doc. 41).