Background Check, Fee to Buy Ammunition Survives Challenge Under 42 USC §1983

Trial court erred in dismissing minority shareholder oppression and declaratory judgment claims because, although appellant appeared to be seeking consummation of payment under the parties' settlement, he also alleged that appellees had disregarded his rights as a minority shareholder and sought judicial declaration of his shareholder status, forms of relief not available at law. Order of the trial court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

The court granted defendant Liberty Mutual's motion for a stay pending the Third Circuit's resolution of the appeal in In re BPS Direct, LLC, MDL 3074, 2023 WL 8458245 which could be dispositive of plaintiff's standing in this case.

Defendant filed an answer that included an affirmative defense which the court deemed invalid on the face of the parties' pleadings. After defendant explained its rationale for asserting the affirmative defense, the court imposed a Rule 11 sanction and struck all of defendant's affirmative defenses from its answer.

Defendants moved to strike and to dismiss plaintiff's putative class action over deficiencies in contracted-for trash and recycling services and court found the complaint sufficiently complied with Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) but failed to show court had jurisdiction over any defendant except ABJ and failed to show fraud, negligent misrepresentation or a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Motion denied in part and granted in part.

Defendant moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment action and court found sufficient evidence existed to warrant submitting plaintiff's claims to a jury. Motion denied.

Defendant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence entered on his jury trial conviction of driving under the influence of controlled substances and trial court conviction of related lesser charges. The court affirmed, holding that defendant's rejection of a requested blood-draw test, along with a state trooper's testimony and other evidence of defendant's impairment, were legally sufficient to convict him of DUI.