Date range

Federal court interpretation finds plaintiff did not properly allege Uber was common carrier or negligent in hiring, retention, supervision of alleged sexual perpetrator. Did amply allege claims of negligent misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices.

The District Court was charged with evaluating the pleading sufficiency of numerous causes of action by a Jane Doe against Uber related to a physical and sexual assault allegedly suffered by Jane Doe at the hands of an Uber driver. Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, Janu

In trade secrets dispute, award of attorneys fees as spoliation sanction was upheld for failure to preserve electronic records and suspend automatic deletion policies.

In a matter that touches on an ever-growing area of concern for trucking and transportation companies—identification and preservation of electronic materials as potential evidence—the defendant failed to comply with a preservation request, resulti Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, Janu

Law professor, an attorney admitted to practice in PA, was not liable for monetary damages in connection with alleged unauthorized practice of law and obtaining referral fee.

In this case of first impression before the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling which held that a law professor, an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, was liable for hundreds of thousands of dol Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, Janu

Pennsylvania Superior Court decides issue of first impression regarding assignment of claims.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided a matter of first impression regarding the assignment of a claim by one contracting party, against another contracting party, to a non-contracting party without the would-be defendant’s consent, despite an a Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, Janu