The best evidence of our appellate skill is found in the successful results we have obtained for our clients.
Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Class Action Challenging Conversion of Defined Benefit Pension Plan to Cash Balance Plan
In an important ERISA class action with ramifications for employers throughout the country, we represented PNC, which was sued by a group of current and former employees who alleged that the conversion of PNC's pension plan from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan violated ERISA's provision barring age discrimination. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that there was no ERISA violation. Register v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., 477 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2007).
Ninth Circuit Determines When Statute of Limitations Begins to Run on Design-and-Construction Claims under Fair Housing Act
In a major decision of first impression, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, adopted our position that an aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date the last certificate of occupancy is issued. Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d. 456 (9th Cir. May 13, 2008)(en banc).
Third Circuit Affirms Entry of Summary Judgment against Plaintiff on Antitrust Group Boycott Claim
We represented a major wholesale distributor that had been accused of violating the antitrust laws by allegedly acting as the ringleader of a group boycott of a discount retailer. The Third Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for our client, finding that the evidence showed only parallel conduct, not an unlawful conspiracy. The Third Circuit's decision received extensive coverage in myriad antitrust law publications because it represented that court's first application of the Supreme Court's important decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. Cosmetic Gallery Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., 495 F.3d 46 (3d Cir. 2007).
In a Matter of Great Importance to HMOs in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Third Circuit Hold that HMOs are Exempt from Anti-Subrogation Provisions of Pennsylvania’s Automobile Insurance Law
In an important case of first impression with far-reaching ramifications for not only our client, Aetna U.S. Healthcare, but all HMOs in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania HMO Act exempts HMOs from complying with the anti-subrogation provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The question had been certified to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by the Third Circuit. Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 904 A.2d 858 (Pa. 2006); Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 469 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2006).
In a Certified Case Presenting Important Public Policy Issues, Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Provision Held to be Enforceable under New Jersey Law
We represented a mortgage lender in a case that presented the issue of whether an arbitration provision that waived the borrower’s right to assert claims on behalf of a class was enforceable under New Jersey law. The Third Circuit certified the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which held that the provision was enforceable. Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28, 912 A.2d 104 (2006); Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 466 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2006).
Third Circuit Predicts that New Jersey Supreme Court Would Recognize a Duty by Surety Bond Broker to Obligees of the Bond
We represented an insurance company that had been harmed by a commercial bond broker's failure to obtain a surety bond on which the insurer would be an obligee. The district court had granted summary judgment against our client, finding that, under New Jersey law, the surety bond broker did not owe a duty of care to diligently and carefully procure the bond. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the New Jersey Supreme Court would recognize such a duty. Highlands Ins. Co. v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 373 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2004).
South Carolina Supreme Court Refuses To Recognize "Negligent Enablement of Impostor Fraud" as a New Tort
In a case of first impression in which we represented two of the country's leading credit card issuers, the South Carolina Supreme Court, responding to a certified question from the federal district court, held that a credit card issuer cannot be sued for the "negligent enablement of impostor fraud." The court declared that the growing problem of identity theft is a matter most appropriately addressed by federal and state legislative action, rather than by the creation of new torts. Huggins v. Citibank, 355 S.C. 329, 585 S.E.2d 275 (2003).
Eleventh Circuit Puts Brakes on Wave of Class Actions Attacking the Most Widely Used Automobile Lease Early Termination Formula
Numerous class actions were filed around the country attacking the most widely used formula for calculating automobile lease early termination charges. In this appeal, we represented Banc One Credit Company and obtained the first precedential federal appellate decision holding that the early termination formula was reasonably related to the harm caused by early termination. This determination was made under both the federal Consumer Leasing Act and Georgia state law. Baez v. Banc One Leasing Corp., 348 F.3d 972 (11th Cir. 2003).
Eleventh Circuit Holds that Reliance is an Essential Element of a Claim for Actual Damages under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, Precluding Class Certification
We represented a bank that had been named as a defendant in a nationwide class action alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The 11th Circuit, sitting en banc, unanimously overruled its precedent and held that detrimental reliance is an essential element of a claim for actual damages under TILA. Because such claims require individualized proof, the 11th Circuit held that class certification was properly denied. Turner v. Beneficial Corp., 242 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Eleventh Circuit Finds Federal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Action against Opt-Outs from Class Settlement
We represented a bank that, after settling a nationwide class action, was confronted with the prospect of hundreds of lawsuits in Alabama state court by borrowers who had opted out of the settlement class. The bank filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court against all of those persons, seeking a declaration that their threatened (but not yet filed) state law claims were subject to arbitration. The 11th Circuit held that federal subject matter jurisdiction existed over the lawsuit, even though the borrowers had disclaimed any intent to file federal claims against the bank. Household Bank v. JFS Group, 320 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2003).