Artificial Citations Lands Another Attorney in Trouble in Pennsylvania

Another Pennsylvania attorney has been sanction for submitting filings in federal court containing AI hallucinations.

In the case of Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc., No. 4:23-CV-00067-MWB (M.D. Pa. June 18, 2026 Brann, C.J.), Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann sanctioned an attorney by fining him $1,500 and suspending him from practicing in the Middle District Federal Court for six months due to the submission of filings by the attorney containing AI-generated hallucinated citations.

The Court found that the attorney had violated Rule 11 by submitting fabricated and inaccurate case citations.  In his Opinion, Judge Brann also expressed his displeasure with the attorney attempting to shift the blame relative to his responsibility for submitting the erroneous citations contained in the brief that was filed with the Court.

Anyone wishing to review Judge Brann's May 21, 2026 decision in this case may click this LINK.  The portion of the Opinion covering the AI issues is near the end of the Opinion.

The Court's June 18, 2026 Order entering sanctions can be viewed at this LINK.

Source: Article - "Fed. Court Suspends Pa. Attorney for AI-Hallucinated Citations," by Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (June 22, 2026).

Source of image: Photo by Zach M on www.unsplash.com.

Court Rules That Seasoned Federal Middle District Attorneys Can Expect Hourly Rates of $375 Per Hour For Attorney's Fees Requests

In the case of Holmes v. American Homepatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2025 Brann, C.J.), the court granted, in part, a Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees Under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

In his decision, Chief Judge Brann reviewed a Plaintiff’s law firm’s request for $2.45 Million Dollars in attorney’s fees and allowed for such fees but cut down the amount requested to just over $250,000.00. In coming to amount of fees awarded, the court reduced the hourly rates pled and the hours logged.

This attorney’s fees request came after the Plaintiff prevailed in a hostile work environment case against her former employer. According to the below cited article on this case, while the Plaintiff had originally secured a verdict that included $20 million dollars in punitive damages and $500,000.00 in compensatory damages, in another, previous decision rendered in this case, the court subsequently reduced that verdict to $1 million dollars.

After reviewing attorney's fees awards in the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania for the past five (5) years, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann determined in this matter that the district court regularly awarded attorney fee rates ranging from $100.00 to $375.00 depending upon skill, experience, the complexity of the case, and other factors.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D.Pa.

In this case, finding that the Plaintiff’s lead attorneys, who have been practicing for twenty-eight (28) years and twenty-four (24) years respectively, the court awarded those attorneys hourly rates of $375.00 per hour. The lesser involved attorneys with lesser experience were awarded hourly rates of $300.00 per hour and $250.00 per hour. The court also reduced the paralegal hourly rates down to $150.00 per hour and $115.00 per hour, based upon the factors noted.

The court otherwise cut down purported travel time and other hours of work on post-trial motions. Chief Judge Brann noted that many of the post-trial motions were not complex and did not propose novel questions.

The court also agreed with the Defendant’s argument that, overall, the fees requested should be slashed by 5% because of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ use of quarter-hour and half-hour increments for billing.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Judge Tanks Prevailing Pittsburgh Attorneys’ $2.45M Fee Request to $250K,” by Riley Brennan, The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 29, 2025).

Source of top image:  Photo by Towfiqu Barbhuiya on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Reduces $20 Million Dollar Punitive Damages Award

In the case of Holmes v. American Homepatient, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-01683 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2024 Brann, C.J), the court addressed a number of post-trial issues following the entry of a $20.5 million verdict in favor of a Plaintiff in a Section 1981 hostile work environment claim.

Of note, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $500,000.00 in compensatory damages and $20 million dollars in punitive damages.

While the judge held up most of the jury’s findings in his Opinion, the court did find that the award of punitive damages was unconstitutional. After reviewing the law and settling on a 2 to 1 ratio, Judge Brann reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million dollars.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: Article – “Federal Judge Cuts $20M Punitive Damages Award To $1M Over Constitutionality Concerns” By Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 6, 2024).

Federal Court Addresses Potential Liability of a Broker in a Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Allen v. Foxway Transportation, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00156-MWB (M.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2023 Brann, C.J.), the court issued a decision in a fatal trucking accident case holding that, under the facts presented in this case, a broker was not liable for the actions of the motor carrier or its driver both of which had been retained to deliver a shipment. However, the court that a material dispute existed on whether the broker had negligently entrusted the motor carrier with a shipment at issue.

As such, the cross-Motions for Summary Judgement by the injured party and the broker were granted in part and denied in part.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann’s Opinion is notable, in part, due to his review of Federal Middle District Court Local Rule 56.1 which governs the filing of a short and concise Statement of Material Facts in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment relative to facts that the moving party contends there are no genuine issues to be tried. 

In his Opinion, Chief Judge Brann provided guidance on how such Statements of Material Fact in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment should be written and how the non-moving party should properly respond to the same.

Relative to the substantive issues as to whether, under the facts of this case, the broker could be vicarious liable for the actions of the motor carrier and its driver, Chief Judge Brann reviewed Pennsylvania law regarding vicarious liability and the factors necessary to show a master-servant relationship in support of the same.

After applying those factors to the case presented, the court found that the broker in this case was not liable for the actions of the motor carrier.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish support for the allegations that Gateway had been involved in a “joint venture” with the motor carrier. As such, the broker’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue was granted.

However, as noted above, the court noted that the issues of negligent entrustment remained in dispute.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Josiah Farrow on www.unsplash.com.

Claims of Recklessness And Punitive Damages Allowed To Proceed in Trucking Accident Case Where Outrageous Facts Pled

In the case of Guy v. Eliwa, No. 4:23-CV-00472 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2023 Brann, C.J.), Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Federal Middle District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reviewed the propriety of claims of recklessness in civil litigation matters in the context of a federal court personal injury suit.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a three (3) vehicle accident on Interstate 80 that involved three (3) tractor trailers. Two (2) tractor trailers were involved in an accident on the highway and then struck the Plaintiff’s parked tractor trailer.

One of the Defendant tractor trailer drivers fled the scene of the accident without attempting to stop or render aid. That driver was subsequently charged with accidents involving death or personal injury, disregarding the traffic lane, accident involving property damage, failure to stop and give information and render aid, careless driving, and recklessly endangering another person.

The Plaintiff sued the tractor trailer drivers and their employers. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted various allegations of recklessness.

The Defendants filed various motions against the Complaint.

In contrast to the more stringent state court Rules of Civil Procedure requiring fact-pleading in Pennsylvania, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notice pleading is all that is required.  

Relative to the Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, the court in this case noted that the Plaintiff cited to Pennsylvania case law explaining that the procedural rules allow a Plaintiff to pled gross negligence and recklessness generally.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann noted that this would mean that a Plaintiff need only allege that a Defendant was “reckless” for punitive damages claims to survive a Motion to Dismiss, so long as the underlying negligence claim also survives.

In reviewing this area of the law, Judge Brann noted that there is a split of authority amongst the Pennsylvania state courts on this point. In noting the split of authority, Judge Brann cited to “Pleading For Clarity: Appellate Guidance Needed to Settle the Issue of the Proper Pleading of Recklessness in Personal Injury Matters” by Daniel E. Cummins, 93 PA Bar Ass’n Q.32 (2022).

Judge Brann noted that “even in Pennsylvania courts which permit recklessness to be averred generally at the Motion to Dismiss stage, the record must ultimately support a finding of recklessness beyond merely claiming recklessness generally. See Op. at 12 citing Monroe v. CBH20, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 780 (Pa. Super. 2022).

In this case, Judge Brann applied Federal Rule of Procedure 9(b). The court noted that Rule 9(b) mirrors Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1019(b) by stating that “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”

With respect to the separate issue of allegations in support of a claim for punitive damages, the court noted that a Plaintiff is required to show that the Defendant had a state of mind such that the Defendant had to be an outrageous manner due to other an evil motive or a reckless indifference to the rights of others.

The court stated that, in order to show reckless indifference sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, the Plaintiff must present evidence to establish that a Defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the Plaintiff was exposed and that the Defendant acted, or failed to act, in conscious disregard of that risk.

Judge Brann stated that this means that recklessness - - like negligence - - is a legal standard, with components relating to a Defendant’s conduct and a Defendant’s state of mind. The court noted that Rule 9(b) only pertains to the Defendant’s state of mind.

Accordingly, Judge Brann held that a federal court may dismiss a completely bald allegation of “recklessness” as conclusory when a Plaintiff is requesting punitive damages. However, he emphasized that a federal court is not compelled to dismiss such a claim. 

Reviewing the law of the Third Circuit, Judge Brann found that the weight of authority in the Third Circuit has prompted most courts in the District, including the federal courts of the Middle District, to employ the trial court’s wide discretion in preserving recklessness claims at the Motion to Dismiss stage and allowing such claims to proceed into discovery.

Judge Brann continued by stating that the courts in the Middle District have more specifically stated that, because the question of whether punitive damages are proper often turns on the Defendants’ state of mind, this question frequently cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone but must await the development of the full factual record at trial.  As such, such claims are generally allowed to proceed beyond the pleadings stage.

Turning to the allegations asserted by the Plaintiff in this case, Judge Brann found that the Plaintiff had actually alleged outrageous facts to show evidence of reckless indifference on the part of the Defendant in any event so as to allow the claim to proceed into discovery. More specifically, the court noted that flight from the scene of an automobile accident, without attempting to stop or render aid, certainly demonstrates a degree of reckless indifference possibly justifying the application of punitive damages.

Judge Brann’s decision in this case is otherwise notable for his addressing various issues with regards to trucking accident cases, including the requirement of the Plaintiff to cite to specific statutes and laws and regulations in the Complaint when making claims of violations of the same.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE

I send thanks to Attorney Hannah Molitoris of the Philadelphia office of the Morgan & Morgan law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Chief Judge Brann of Middle District Federal Court of PA Provides a Definition for Gross Negligence

In the case of Johnson v. Keane Group Holdings, LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00491 (M.D. Pa. May 3, 2023 Brann, C.J.), the court reviewed the definition of “gross negligence.”

In this matter, the court denied summary judgment in a personal injury case involving a plaintiff who was injured in at a well site in the oil and gas industry.

The court noted that the Defendant’s indemnification agreement excluded liability for “gross negligence.”

Chief Judge Brann noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never precisely defined the term of “gross negligence.”

The Court found the question before it to involve the issue of whether "gross negligence" requires a finding of recklessness on the part of the defendant.  In the end, Judge Brann ruled that "gross negligence" does not required a finding of recklessness.

Judge Brann noted that the difficulty in defining gross negligence arises from the fact that the terms origin is in statutory law rather than common law, which does not recognize degrees of negligence.

Chief Judge Brann stated that gross negligence does not require the intentional indifference or conscious disregard of risks that defines recklessness.

Accordingly, gross negligence was found to require evidence that an actor’s conduct was an extreme departure from the relevant standard of care. However, evidence that the actor acted recklessly is not required for a finding of gross negligence.

The court denied summary judgment in this case given the issues of fact presented on and found that summary judgment was not appropriate on the issue of whether or not the Defendant was grossly negligent under the circumstances presented.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.   The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Punitive Damages Claims Dismissed in Federal Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Koch v. Lawson, No. 4:22-CV-01647 (M.D. Pa. April 12, 2023 Brann, C.J.), the court granted a partial Motion to Dismiss in which a Defendant attacked punitive damages claims asserted by a Plaintiff in a trucking accident accident case.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania ruled that punitive damages are proper only when the Defendant’s actions are of such an outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. In order to proceed on a claim for punitive damages, the Plaintiff must pled facts in support of the same.

In support of a punitive damages claim, the Plaintiff rattled off a long list of traffic violations against the Defendant in the Complaint, including allegations that the Defendant-driver was driving while distracted or fatigued and that the driver allegedly fell asleep while driving.

The Court noted that, while the Plaintiff had alleged a slew of traffic violations alleged committed by the Defendant-driver, the Plaintiff had only factually alleged that the Defendant-driver operated a tractor trailer and, at the time of the accident, allegedly ran a red light.    

Judge Brann noted that a Plaintiff who only alleges that a Defendant failed to obey traffic laws has not met the pleadings requirements for punitive damages claims, particularly where underlying facts are not also pled in support of such allegations of outrageous conduct.

It was also emphasized that, in this case, the Plaintiff did not allege any facts to support an allegation that the driver made a conscious decision to drive while fatigued.

Chief Judge Brann ruled that, at most, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant-driver failed to follow the Rules of the Road.  The Court found that such allegations, alone, are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  As such, the punitive damages claims asserted against the Defendant-driver were dismissed.

Chief Judge Brann otherwise ruled that, with respect to the allegations of punitive damages asserted against the Defendant trucking company, those claims would also be dismissed given that the Plaintiff had only pled conclusory allegations that the company Defendant knew or should have known certain things without the Plaintiff also providing any factual specificity in the Complaint.  Accordingly, the punitive damages claims asserted against the Defendant-company were also dismissed.    

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed at this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law firm of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Pixabay on www.pexels.com.

Judge Brann Review Rules of Evidence Regarding Admissibility of Evidence and Expert Testimony in a Trucking Accident Matter

In the case of Cleveland Brothers Equip. Co. v. Vorobey, No. 4:19-CV-01708 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2023 Brann, J.), the court addressed numerous pre-trial Motions in Limine in a contribution action arising out of a trucking accident.

In ruling on the various pre-trial Motions in Limine at issue, Judge Brann provided a detailed recitation as to the current law regarding the general the admissibility of certain evidence at trial.

With regards to one of the issues raised in this case, in which Cleveland Brothers was seeking contribution against a Co-Defendant relative to a Cleveland Brothers’ payment of a settlement in an underlying personal injury matter, the court ruled that evidence regarding a Defendant’s lack of participation in a Mediation that led to the settlement of the underlying action would be excluded as irrelevant to the negligence issues presented in this contribution case. 

The court reasoned that whether and why a party did or did not participate in an underlying legal proceeding had no bearing on whether that party owed a duty of law or breached that duty relative to the underlying motor vehicle accident. The court also noted that the reference to any litigation strategy by the parties in the underlying case was inadmissible as it would likely confuse and distract the jury in this subsequent contribution action.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

In this decision, the court also addressed issues regarding the qualifications and competency of a defense accident reconstruction expert to testify with regards to certain issues relevant to the accident. In his Opinion, Judge Brann set out the applicable law as to the admissibility of an expert witness as an expert in detail.  After reviewing that law, Judge Brann limited the Defendant's accident reconstruction expert’s testimony in certain respects.

The court also addressed whether or to the Defendant in this contribution action could attempt to introduce evidence that the settlement of the underlying personal injury case was allegedly influenced upwards by the fact that punitive damages claims were pled.

Judge Brann found that the Defendant in this contribution case had not developed any factual basis to support a claim that the punitive damages pled in the underlying case did serve to influence the settlement for which Cleveland Brothers was seeking a contribution in this matter.

The court also noted that an affirmative defense, such as the one at issue regarding the punitive damages issue, raised by a Defendant can be dismissed prior to trial for lack of proof. The court found that the Defendant’s proof in this regard was woefully insufficient and, as such, the Defendant was precluded from referencing at the trial of the contribution claims the fact that punitive damages may have been at issue in the underlying personal injury matter.

Relative to the actions of the Defendant truck driver, Judge Brann noted that, since the negligence of that driver was conceded, evidence of that driver’s conviction for traffic violations would be precluded as being more prejudicial then probative under an application of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Judge Brann also addressed whether or not Cleveland Brothers could proceed with affidavits and/or testimony from the Plaintiff’s attorneys for the original Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation in the effort by Cleveland Brothers to establish that the damages paid in the underlying settlement were reasonable and necessary. 

The court analogized this evidence as being similar to office notes or reports by treating physicians. Judge Brann stated that, in the same way that treating physicians need not submit expert reports concerning their treatment in order to testify at trial, the attorneys for the original Plaintiffs in this same litigation would be permitted to testify as to the fairness of settlement without submitting expert reports under F.R.C.P. 26.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for summarizing this case in his monthly newsletter.  For full disclosure purposes, I note that I represented an Additional Defendant in this case.

Court Declines to Lift Stay in Civil Matter Due to Pending Criminal Case

In the case of Piazza v. Young, No. 4:19-CV-00180 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2023 Brann, C.J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift an Existing Discovery Stay Order in a case in which certain Defendants had secured a stay of any discovery due to a pending parallel criminal action.

In reviewing the Motion, the court addressed the following factors:

1. The extent to which the issues in the civil and criminal cases overlapped;

2. The status of the criminal proceedings, including whether any Defendants have been
indicted;

3. The Plaintiff’s interests in expeditious civil proceedings weighed alongside the prejudice
to the Plaintiff caused by the delay;

4. The burden on the Defendants;

5. The interest of the court; and,

6. The public interests

In reviewing these factors, the court noted that the civil and criminal cases were identical in this matter arising out of an alleged fraternity hazing claims. The court also noted that the civil court would not penalize the Plaintiffs for any delays that may be caused by the criminal proceedings. For example, the court indicated that discovery deadlines could be extended if the criminal proceedings were not resolved by the time the deadlines expired.

The court additionally noted that the Defendants indicated that, should discovery be allowed to proceed, the Defendants would likely assert their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, which could lead to further discovery disputes.

The court also noted that, given the overlap between the civil case and the ongoing criminal actions, requiring the Defendants to proceed with discovery in the civil case and sit for depositions would create a real risk of undue prejudice for the Defendants.

Based upon an application of the factors to the case presented, the court denied the Motion to Lift the Stay.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Federal Court Rules that Contributory Negligence Defense Cannot Be Utilized in a Strict Liability Case

In the Cote v. Schnell Industries, No. 4:18-CV-01440 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Motions In Limine filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this strict products liability claim.

More specifically, the court excluded evidence of the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence, recklessness, or assumption of the risk where the product manufacturer Defendant could not show that the alleged product defects contributed in no way whatsoever to the accident and that the victim’s actions were therefore causally connected.

In this regard, Judge Brann noted that a products liability Defendant is not permitted to use contributory negligence concepts to excuse a product's defect or reduce recovery by comparing the fault of the parties in a strict liability case.  The exception is where the accident at issue was solely caused by a Plaintiff's negligence, which was not the case here.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Jurisdiction Over Accident That Occurred in Virginia

In the case of Grady v. Rothwell, No. 4:22-CV0-00428 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Virginia.

The Defendant tractor trailer driver was not a resident of Pennsylvania, nor was La-Z-Boy Logistics, which was the company for which the driver was driving.

Judge Brann found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction as there was no evidence or allegation that the corporate Defendant was “at home” in Pennsylvania. Personal jurisdiction was also not found due to the fact that the subject motor vehicle accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann ruled that the fact that La-Z-Boy did business nationwide, including Pennsylvania, was insufficient, in and of itself, to confer general personal jurisdiction over that party, as there was no allegation that the company had any locations or employees in Pennsylvania.

The court additionally found that there was no basis to assert specific personal jurisdiction as the underlying motor vehicle accident occurred in the State of Virginia.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order may be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 1, 2022).

Source of top image:  photo by Josiah Farrow from www.pexels.com.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann of Middle District Addresses Admissibility of Alleged Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff in Products Case

In the case of Cote v. Schnell Industries, No. 4:18-CV--1440 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed several issues with respect to the admissibility of alleged misconduct by a Plaintiff in a products liability case.

According to the Opinion, this case involved a machine involved in a workplace accident that nearly severed the Plaintiff's hand.

The court noted that a Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not admissible in a strict liability action, except as a superceding cause where the Plaintiff is the sole cause of the accident. The court otherwise noted that negligence that relates to the product itself cannot be a sole cause.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff’s conduct in putting his hand in a dangerous position in the product relates to the product and was, therefore, inadmissible to be used against the Plaintiff.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s conduct is not relevant to the consumer expectation or risk-utility factors applicable to a products liability action because these tests to determine a product defect are concerned with the actions of an “ordinary” person, and not any particular Plaintiff.

However, the court did note that evidence of a Plaintiff’s voluntary assumption of the risks, misuse of a product, or highly reckless conduct is admissible to prove the issue of causation.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann stated that, under Pennsylvania law, the assumption of the risk doctrine requires a knowing and voluntary exposure of oneself to a known risk. The court found that his assumption of the risk doctrine is inapplicable where a Plaintiff was required to use equipment provided by an employer.

Judge Brann additionally noted that product misuse and highly reckless conduct involve a Plaintiff’s unforeseeable, outrageous, and extraordinary use of a product. Whether a Plaintiff’s conduct meets this standard is for a jury to decide.

However, because a Plaintiff’s misuse and highly reckless conduct cannot be a sole cause of the accident, the court found the evidence of such conduct was inadmissible. 

On another issue before the Court, Judge Brann additionally noted that the Defendants could not use a Motion In Limine as a belated substitute for a Rule 702 motion relative to the competency of an expert’s opinion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I thank Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann Addresses How To Attack Deficient Affirmative Defenses

In the case of Armbruster v. Eskola, No. 4:21-CV-02070 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2022 Brann, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss. Of note, the court addressed the propriety of pleadings in a Defendant's stated affirmative defenses in this Federal Court matter.

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident.

After the Defendant file an Answer with Affirmative Defenses, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Answer under F.R.C.P. 11.    

Initially, the court ruled that a Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike, not a challenge under Rule 11, is the proper process for evaluating the sufficiency of pleading defenses.

Under F.R.C.P. 12(f), a court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant material, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."   

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Judge Matthew W. Brann went on to rule that affirmative defenses asserted by a Defendant must provide the Plaintiff with fair notice as to the types of defenses raised, but need not rise to the level of plausibility.

The court noted that pleading facts in affirmative defenses is not necessary as long as the defense stated is logically within the ambit of the litigation. However, defenses that have no factual or logical relationship to the allegations in the Complaint will be stricken.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Ujesh Krishnan on www.unsplash.com.

Chief Judge Brann of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Variety of Products Liability Issues

In the case of Goodling v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:21-CV-00082 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2022 Brann, C.J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss in a medical device strict liability and negligence claim reagarding pelvic mesh product.

The court found that, although the Plaintiffs’ Complaint provided comparatively little information about the medical procedure and the injuries at issue, the allegations were found to provide adequate notice of the claims and supporting facts and could not be dismissed as an alleged shotgun pleading.

Notably, Judge Brann also ruled that Pennsylvania law did not require an application of the Restatement of Torts (Second) §402A, comment k, across the board to bar strict liability claims against medical devices. 

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann noted that Pennsylvania Superior court precedent barring such claims has been undermined by other decisions. Judge Brann felt that comment k applied to medical devices only on a case-by-case basis.

While the court found that the Plaintiff’s strict liability allegations involving a design defects and with respect to warnings were adequately pled, the court dismissed the strict liability manufacturing defect claim because there was no allegation made that the device deviated in some unique way from its intended design.

Judge Brann additionally dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims as duplicative of the Plaintiffs’ warning claims.

The court also noted that the claim of unjust enrichment did not apply in products liability claims where the Plaintiff actually received and used the product. 

Elsewhere in his decision, Judge Brann also confirmed the rule of law that punitive damages are not to be considered a separate cause of action, but rather, an element of damages.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this notable decision by Chief Judge Brann of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck from the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

General Jurisidiction Fails But Specific Jurisdiction Prevails Over Trucking Defendants

In the case of Allen v. Foxway Transp., Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00156 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2022 Brann, C.J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based upon general personal jurisdiction issues raised in a tractor trailer accident case that involved Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and out-of-state Defendants.  The accident actually happened in New York state.

The court found that there was no basis for general personal jurisdiction over either of the Defendants in this case.  Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann noted that general jurisdiction exists over foreign defendants when their contact with Pennsylvania is so systematic and continuous as to render them at home in Pennsylvania.  Here, the court found that the frequent freight hauling into Pennsylvania is simply the regular course of doing business which is insufficient to trigger jurisdiction over a Defendant.

The court additionally reiterated a rule that the designation of a Pennsylvania registered agent as a federally regulated motor carrier also did not serve to create general jurisdiction.

However, Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that, since the Defendant was shipping freight that was destined to go to Pennsylvania and given that the trucker had injured Pennsylvania residents during the course of the trip, there was enough case-specific contacts by the Defendant to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant trucking company and driver even though the subject accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the other Defendant, who had brokered numerous Pennsylvania shipments, including the one at issue in this case, was found to have the same state-specific contacts with Pennsylvania to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over that Defendant as well.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck from the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Addy Mae from www.unsplash.com.

Judge Brann of Federal Middle District Refuses to Create New Duty in Fraternity Hazing Cases

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2021 Brann, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss in a college fraternity hazing personal injury case.

Judge Brann ruled that allegations of off-campus fraternity hazing, unknown to and unsupported by the Defendant university did not justify the creation of a new tort duty to discover and halt such conduct.

As part of his ruling, the court noted that the creation of a duty to ferret out and prevent hazing would effectively require a prohibition of all student group gatherings without direct university supervision.

The court otherwise noted that institutions of higher learning do not owe any in loco parentis duty to its students.

In the end, the court found that hazing incidents involving separate, unaffiliated organizations are too attenuated to constitute facilitation or recklessness allegations.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Svistunov on unsplash.com.

Federal Judge Denies Motion For Summary Judgment Filed by Carrier on Coverage Issues Related to Alleged Fraternity Hazing Death

In the case of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Dibileo, No. 3:19-CV-01003 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2021 Brann, J.), the court denied a carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its Declaratory Judgment Action regarding issues of coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy arising out of alleged actions by fraternity students in an alleged hazing death.   

The court found that the action filed by the decedent’s parents stated a claim for negligence.  The court found that policy provisions in the homeowner’s policy excluding coverage for criminal and intentional acts did not serve to insulate the carrier from the negligent claims asserted by the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 17, 2021). 

No Summary Judgment Allowed Based on Lack of Notice in Slip and Fall Case Where Surveillance Tape Spoliated

In the case of Nixon v. Family Dollar Stores, No. 4:20-CV-00404 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2021 Brann, J.), the court found that a claim of spoliation precluded the entry of summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the court found that the Defendant spoliated surveillance camera tapes. The court found that this allowed for a permissive adverse inference jury instruction.

Based on the possibility of a permissive adverse inference, the court found that summary judgment was precluded with respect to any argument regarding notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order by Judge Brann can be viewed HERE,

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Justin Buisson on Unsplash.com.

   

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Issues of Alleged Hazing and the Applicablity of an Arbitration Agreement on Such Allegations

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2021 Brann, J.), the court granted Bucknell University’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s Complaint arising out of allegations that the Plaintiff was hazed during an event on campus.   

The Plaintiff alleges that, after the alleged hazing events, Bucknell University attempted to keep word as to what happened within the campus walls in an effort to avoid the publicity associated with taking adverse or disciplinary action against the students involved or the fraternity involved.   

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted three claims against Bucknell, including claims for hazing, negligence, and negligence per se.   

Bucknell University filed a Motion to Dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).   

Judge Matthew W. Brann noted that, under the Twombly/Iqbal analysis, in order to survive a Motion to Dismiss, “a Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”   See Op. at 7. 

The court went on to note that “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”   Id.   

After reviewing the case before it, the court concluded that Bucknell did not owe a duty to the Plaintiff under the circumstances presented.   The court rejected the Plaintiff’s request that the court articulate a new duty encompassing Bucknell’s conduct in this case.   It appeared to the court that the duty that the Plaintiff’s sought to have imposed was to require colleges to regulate and control fraternities that the college specifically knows are likely to engage in hazing of pledges.   The court rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the creation of such a duty.   

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s request that a duty be imposed upon the university under various sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.   

The court additionally dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims for hazing and negligence per se, both of which claims were predicated upon Bucknell University’s alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Owen Coleman of the Law Offices of Harry Coleman in Carbondale, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

___________   

In the case of Jean v. Bucknell University, No. 4:20-CV-01722 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2021 Brann, J.), Judge Matthew W. Brann, issued a separate decision in this case addressing various Motions to Compel Arbitration in a case involving hazing allegations.  

The court noted that every student who receives a bid to join the fraternity must a complete a new member registration form on the fraternity’s website.  Under that document, the new member consented to mandatory arbitration of any legal claims or disputes between the member and the fraternity.   

In this decision, the court addressed various issues on whether the mandatory arbitration provisions should be imposed upon the parties given that a separate personal injury litigation was also pending.   

In a 50 page Opinion, the court declined to sever any unconscionable terms of the arbitration agreement and instead ruled that the agreement should be allowed to stand.   In the end, however, the court denied the various Motions to Compel Arbitration.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Owen Coleman of the Law Offices of Harry Coleman in Carbondale, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.   

No Coverage -- No Bad Faith

In the case of Berkley Specialty Ins. Co. v. Masterforce Constr. Corp., No. 4:19-CV-01162 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2021 Brann, J.), the court ruled that, there can be no valid bad faith allegations against a carrier where no coverage is due, or where coverage is a close question based upon unsettled law.

In this decision, the court addressed a split of authority based upon Pennsylvania Superior Court precedent and Third Circuit Court of Appeal precedent on whether coverage is required to be provided for damages flowing from faulty workmanship in construction cases, even if the faulty workmanship itself is not covered.

Judge Brann relied upon Third Circuit precedent emphasizing that all reasonably foreseeable damages resulting from faulty workmanship do not constitute an “occurrence” whether that is damage to the product being constructed or damages to the property beyond the scope of the construction contract resulting from that faulty workmanship.

The court held that no coverage was due to replace a roof in this matter that had allegedly been improperly constructed. The court additionally found that there was no coverage due to areas of the roof damage that was outside the scope of the contracted roof work, which also had to be replaced as a result of the allegedly faulty construction, as these third party property damages were reasonably foreseeable.

As such, the court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the insurer as to coverage.

On the insured’s bad faith claim, the court also granted judgment on the pleadings after observing that the carrier had properly denied benefits and, therefore, the carrier had a reasonable basis for the denial of the benefits, which confirmed that the insured could not prove bad faith. The court additionally held that, where a carrier has no duty to indemnify, or where the duty to indemnify is debatable, it cannot be said that the carrier had no reasonable basis to deny the benefits in question. As such, the bad faith claim was dismissed for this additional reason as well.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The compantion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman Krekstein & Harris and the writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.  That blog can be viewed HERE.