Here's the link http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/index.html
Of possible interest-
- welfare - MA program fee schedule - procedure code changes
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/346.html
- attorneys - discipline - rules of disciplinary enforcement - amendments
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/322.html
- court rules - proposed - pleadings, format - comments due March 8th
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/323.html
- juvenile court judges' commission - statement of policy - admin. of restitution funds
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/329.html
- revenue - mystery multiplier bingo instant lottery game
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol36/36-8/348.html
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
custody - international - Hague Convention
In re Application of Adan - Third Circuit - Febrary 14, 2006
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053045p.pdf
District Court ordered return of parties' daughter to Argentinian father, whom appellant-mother had accused of abusing her and daughter. The 3d Circuit ordered a stay of the return order and remanded the case back to the district court -- which it said had created a "woefully incomplete" record -- for detailed fact-finding about the abuse, the ability of Argentinian authorities to protect the child, etc.
See also, Baxter v. Baxter, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, September 15, 2005 http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043228p.pdf
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053045p.pdf
District Court ordered return of parties' daughter to Argentinian father, whom appellant-mother had accused of abusing her and daughter. The 3d Circuit ordered a stay of the return order and remanded the case back to the district court -- which it said had created a "woefully incomplete" record -- for detailed fact-finding about the abuse, the ability of Argentinian authorities to protect the child, etc.
See also, Baxter v. Baxter, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, September 15, 2005 http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043228p.pdf
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Class Action Notice Landscaping H-2B Case
To: Advocates for Workers
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania nationwide FLSA opt-in class action notice on behalf of H-2B workers against The Brickman Group, Ltd. is available at the following web location:
http://friendsfw.org/H-2B/Brickman/Class_Notice.pdf
The consent form must be returned prior to July 15, 2006. A copy of the consent form is available for printing at:
http://friendsfw.org/H-2B/Brickman/Brickman_Consent.pdf
Brickman is one of the largest employer's of H-2B landscaping workers. The class includes more than 2,000 persons from Mexico and more than 100 persons from Guatemala. The lawsuit is based upon the continuing failure to comply with Arriaga, et al. v. Florida Pacific Farms, LLC, et al., 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002)
The Defendant's U.S. operations where in numerous different status. Addresses supplied as last known US addresses for foreign H-2B workers include persons in the following states (in declining numbers of persons for 2005) : MD; MI; PA; IN; MO; OH; NJ; VA; NY; CO; TX; CT; FL; DE; TN; IL; CA; MA; NC
Interested persons should contact Friends of Farmworkers staff attorney Manuel Boigues, mboigues@friendsfw.org, telephone (215) 733-0878, ext. 130.
Co-counsel include:
Edward Tuddenham
and
Rachel Micah-Jones
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante
Calle Víctor Rosales #164
Col. Centro, Zacatecas, Zac., Méx.
C.P. 98000
Tel: 011 (52) 492 925 2510
Fax: 011 (52) 492 925 2511
Free call from Mexico 01-800-59-01-773
Free call within the US: 1 - (800) 401-5901
From: Art Read, Friends of Farmworkers
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania nationwide FLSA opt-in class action notice on behalf of H-2B workers against The Brickman Group, Ltd. is available at the following web location:
http://friendsfw.org/H-2B/Brickman/Class_Notice.pdf
The consent form must be returned prior to July 15, 2006. A copy of the consent form is available for printing at:
http://friendsfw.org/H-2B/Brickman/Brickman_Consent.pdf
Brickman is one of the largest employer's of H-2B landscaping workers. The class includes more than 2,000 persons from Mexico and more than 100 persons from Guatemala. The lawsuit is based upon the continuing failure to comply with Arriaga, et al. v. Florida Pacific Farms, LLC, et al., 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002)
The Defendant's U.S. operations where in numerous different status. Addresses supplied as last known US addresses for foreign H-2B workers include persons in the following states (in declining numbers of persons for 2005) : MD; MI; PA; IN; MO; OH; NJ; VA; NY; CO; TX; CT; FL; DE; TN; IL; CA; MA; NC
Interested persons should contact Friends of Farmworkers staff attorney Manuel Boigues, mboigues@friendsfw.org, telephone (215) 733-0878, ext. 130.
Co-counsel include:
Edward Tuddenham
and
Rachel Micah-Jones
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante
Calle Víctor Rosales #164
Col. Centro, Zacatecas, Zac., Méx.
C.P. 98000
Tel: 011 (52) 492 925 2510
Fax: 011 (52) 492 925 2511
Free call from Mexico 01-800-59-01-773
Free call within the US: 1 - (800) 401-5901
From: Art Read, Friends of Farmworkers
Friday, February 17, 2006
contracts - oral settlement agreement - enforceability
Krebs v. United Refining Co. - Superior Court - February 16, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a21034_05.pdf
An oral settlement agreement can be enforceable, even where the parties cannot agree about reducing it to writing. However, the claim to enforce was denied in this case, because there was no agreement as to essential terms. The nature and extent of mutual obligations were not certain, and there was no agreement about material and necessary details of the parties' alleged bargain. A trial court cannot fill in missing terms and enforce an agreement of its own devising.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a21034_05.pdf
An oral settlement agreement can be enforceable, even where the parties cannot agree about reducing it to writing. However, the claim to enforce was denied in this case, because there was no agreement as to essential terms. The nature and extent of mutual obligations were not certain, and there was no agreement about material and necessary details of the parties' alleged bargain. A trial court cannot fill in missing terms and enforce an agreement of its own devising.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
Thursday, February 16, 2006
UC - voluntary quit - leaving the work site
Iaconelli v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - February 16, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1443CD05_2-16-06.pdf
Claimant was held to have quit her job when she left the work site and did not thereafter try to return to contact the employer. She "did not take any steps to preserve her employment relationship."
"An employee merely leaving the work premises is not enough to determine intent to voluntarily terminate her employment….A claimant must have a conscious intention to terminate her employment….An employee who leaves her employment w/o informing her employer when or if she is planning to return may be held to have voluntarily quit….However, the majority of these cases allow for a reasonable period of time in which an employee has the opportunity to manifest an intent to quit and the employer has the opportunity to contact the employee or vice-[sic]versa."
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1443CD05_2-16-06.pdf
Claimant was held to have quit her job when she left the work site and did not thereafter try to return to contact the employer. She "did not take any steps to preserve her employment relationship."
"An employee merely leaving the work premises is not enough to determine intent to voluntarily terminate her employment….A claimant must have a conscious intention to terminate her employment….An employee who leaves her employment w/o informing her employer when or if she is planning to return may be held to have voluntarily quit….However, the majority of these cases allow for a reasonable period of time in which an employee has the opportunity to manifest an intent to quit and the employer has the opportunity to contact the employee or vice-[sic]versa."
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
UC - findings - complete/specific
Central Dauphin School District v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - February 15, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1453CD05_2-15-06.pdf
This is a voluntary quit case in which a teacher left her job because of serious student discipline problems. The court remanded the case back to the UCBR for further findings of fact on a) Claimant's credibility and b) whether the employer provided her "appropriate and sufficient support" in resolving the student discipline problems
The court said that the student behavior, if it took place, "would certainly create circumstances that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment… if the facts are found as outlined in the record. However, without specific fact finding we can not [sic] exercise proper appellate review." (emphasis added)
The Board "never ruled on the credibility of Claimant vis-a-vis the alleged conduct" outlined in her testimony or whether the employer provided her "appropriate and sufficient support" in resolving the problem.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1453CD05_2-15-06.pdf
This is a voluntary quit case in which a teacher left her job because of serious student discipline problems. The court remanded the case back to the UCBR for further findings of fact on a) Claimant's credibility and b) whether the employer provided her "appropriate and sufficient support" in resolving the student discipline problems
The court said that the student behavior, if it took place, "would certainly create circumstances that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment… if the facts are found as outlined in the record. However, without specific fact finding we can not [sic] exercise proper appellate review." (emphasis added)
The Board "never ruled on the credibility of Claimant vis-a-vis the alleged conduct" outlined in her testimony or whether the employer provided her "appropriate and sufficient support" in resolving the problem.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
paternity by estoppel
Gebler v. Gatti - Pennsylvania Superior Court - February 2, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s52014_05.pdf
The trial court's finding of paternity by estoppel (PBE) was reversed (2-1). The parties were never married, Defendant-appellant held the child out as his own for 18 months, "under Mother's misrepresentation that he was the only one having sexual relations with Mother at the time of conception." Defendant ceased acting as the child's father when he got a private DNA test and learned that he was not the child's biological father. The appellate court said that the doctrine of PBE is "aimed at achieving fairness" by holding parties to the prior conduct. It held that to apply the doctrine here "would defy principles of equity...." One judge dissented.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s52014_05.pdf
The trial court's finding of paternity by estoppel (PBE) was reversed (2-1). The parties were never married, Defendant-appellant held the child out as his own for 18 months, "under Mother's misrepresentation that he was the only one having sexual relations with Mother at the time of conception." Defendant ceased acting as the child's father when he got a private DNA test and learned that he was not the child's biological father. The appellate court said that the doctrine of PBE is "aimed at achieving fairness" by holding parties to the prior conduct. It held that to apply the doctrine here "would defy principles of equity...." One judge dissented.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
consumer protection - pleading - fraud v. misrepresentation - contract under seal - limitations
Christopher v. First Mutual Corp. - ED Pa. - January 20, 2006
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06d0073p.pdf
pleading - fraudulent v. deceptive conduct
The district court found that under the catchall provision of the state consumer protection law, 73 P.S. sec. 201-2(xxi), which prohibits "fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding," it is "no longer necessary for a plaintiff to plead all of the elements of common law fraud to recover" under that provision, where a plaintiff is claiming deception rather than fraud.
It was noted that "courts have divided on whether a plaintiff must meet the heightened fraud pleading requirement," Skurnowicz v. Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Ssuper. 2002) or a less strict requirement, Flores v. Shapiro & Kreisman, 246 F.Supp.2d 427, 432 (ED Pa. 2002), and that the state supreme court had not yet addressed the issue.
statute of limitations - contract under seal
The court also held that the 20-year statute of limitations applied where the document contained the typed words "In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal" and the word "seal" was next to each witness signature, 42 Pa. C.S. sec. 5525(a)(8) (contract under seal).
Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06d0073p.pdf
pleading - fraudulent v. deceptive conduct
The district court found that under the catchall provision of the state consumer protection law, 73 P.S. sec. 201-2(xxi), which prohibits "fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding," it is "no longer necessary for a plaintiff to plead all of the elements of common law fraud to recover" under that provision, where a plaintiff is claiming deception rather than fraud.
It was noted that "courts have divided on whether a plaintiff must meet the heightened fraud pleading requirement," Skurnowicz v. Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Ssuper. 2002) or a less strict requirement, Flores v. Shapiro & Kreisman, 246 F.Supp.2d 427, 432 (ED Pa. 2002), and that the state supreme court had not yet addressed the issue.
statute of limitations - contract under seal
The court also held that the 20-year statute of limitations applied where the document contained the typed words "In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal" and the word "seal" was next to each witness signature, 42 Pa. C.S. sec. 5525(a)(8) (contract under seal).
Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)