In Woodford v. Commonw. of Penn. Ins. Dept., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was called on to decide whether an insurance broker violated the state’s Insurance Department Act of 1921 by charging customers a non-refundable application fee. The Insurance Commissioner and a panel of the Commonwealth Court agreed that 40 P.S. §310.74(b) prohibited the fee. And … Read more
Rarely can this be said, but the 3rd Circuit issued a pleasant and easy-to-read opinion in the qui tam action in In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig. First, the Court held that the first-to-file bar in 31 U.S.C. § 3730 is not jurisdictional. The 3rd Circuit also ruled that a partnership created solely … Read more
In Adams v. Erie Ins. Co., the Superior Court quashed the appeal because a final judgment pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.4 had not been entered by the trial court.
In Repko v. Our Lady of Lourdes Med. Ctr., Inc., the plaintiff’s counsel filed a tort action not knowing that his client had died nine months earlier. Upon learning of the plaintiff’s passing, and well after the statute of limitations expired, counsel tried to amend the complaint to reflect the deceased’s estate as the plaintiff … Read more
Persuasive legal writing matters. Don’t believe us, ask KWS, Inc. In Scalla v. KWS, Inc., the Superior Court issued a thorough dressing-down of the company’s attempt to reopen a default judgment after its employee purposefully ignored service. KWS, Inc., filed its petition to reopen default judgment late; it filed prolix reply briefs and sur-reply briefs … Read more
In Guiser v. Seiber the Superior Court quashed the appeal, in part, because the appellant did not wait for the trial court to rule on post-sentence motions and enter judgment. But the Court reviewed an order granting injuctive relief because a party has a right to appeal immediately from such relief. The Court held that the trial … Read more
The Appellate Division in Seigelstein v. Shrewsbury Motors, Inc., reiterated the importance of the “lodestar” principal regarding attorneys fees originally set forth in Rendine v. Pantzer, whereby the starting point in calculating such fees is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
In the case of In re Suboxone Antitrust Litig., the 3rd Circuit affirmed granting class certification to a group who purchased Suboxone from its manufacturer. The class alleged that the manufacturer engaged in unfair trade practice to drive prescribers away from Suboxone tablets and toward under-the-tongue films in order to drive market share away from … Read more
In a certified question from the 3rd Circuit, the NJ Supreme Court held Bank Leumi USA v. Kloss that the entire controversy does not preclude a party who is successful in filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim from later bringing a suit arising out of the same transactional facts.
In Temple v. Providence Care Ctr., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a trial court has the authority to halt proceedings and sua sponte order a mistrial only where there is “exceedingly clear error” that results in “manifest injustice,” notwithstanding the would-be moving party’s failure to preserve the issue.