Filter This View

  • Bowlen v. Coloplast A/S

    Publication Date: 2018-10-02
    Practice Area: Food and Drug Act | Litigation | Products Liability
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Cercone
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1171

    Plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims against defendants, the manufacturers of a medical device intended to treat erectile disfunction, were not preempted by the Medical Device Amendment because they fell into the parallel claim exception. The court denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

  • Mitchell v. Gobel

    Publication Date: 2018-04-17
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Cercone
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0456

    Defendants were entitled to dismissal of plaintiff police officers action alleging violations of his first amendment rights, conspiracy and re-taliation by the solicitor and the borough when solicitor allegedly attempted to prevent him from running for the position of school director by encouraging others to challenge his nomination petition and allegedly influencing promotions in the police department because none of the events constituted materially adverse actions that hindered his campaign and his efforts to portray solicitor as

  • Pharmerica Corp. v. Lena Sturgeon

    Publication Date: 2018-04-03
    Practice Area: Trade Secrets
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Cercone
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0395

    Court granted defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under PUTSA and DTSA and tortious in-terference with business relationships, in plaintiffs action over start-up hiring plaintiffs employees, because plaintiff failed to identify the alleged trade secrets, failed to show that defendants acquired or used any trade secrets and the employees employment contracts did not restrict their post-termination employment. Motion granted.