Category: Business Law

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Finds Strict Liability

By ,

Improper Basis of Recovery Against Medical Device Manufacturers

Pennsylvania courts consider strict liability to be an improper basis for recovery in cases where manufacturers fail to provide adequate warnings regarding prescription drugs. In Hahn v. Richter, 543 Pa. 558 (Pa. 1996), the Plaintiff, Hahn, was treated for back pain by one of the defendants, Dr. Richter. The treatment included several surgical procedures and multiple intrathecal injections of Depo-Medrol, a drug manufactured by the other defendant involved in the case, Upjohn. A package insert accompanying the drug provided warnings to physicians that a condition called “arachnoiditis” was reported after doctors administered the drug by way of intrathecal injection, and that this method was not an approved usage by the Federal Drug Administration. Following his treatment, Hahn developed the condition “arachnoiditis”, which required further surgery and ultimately resulted in serious, permanent injury. Hahn filed a suit against both Dr. Richter and Upjohn alleging that his condition was caused by the Depo-Medrol and that Upjohn failed to provide adequate warnings to physicians regarding intrathecal use of the drug.

The court ruled that where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers (i.e. manufacturer’s negligence) is the only recognized basis of liability. The court ruled that a “manufacturer of drugs is not strictly liable for unfortunate consequences attending the use of otherwise useful and desirable products which are attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk.”

For more information, call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Fraud in the Inducement Hurdle

By ,

Parole Evidence Rule

When a contracting party has been painted a “false picture” of how a contract will operate, that party may have a fraud in the inducement claim. One instance of this is when an individual signs a materially different contract after the parties had agreed to language in earlier drafts. Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs are required to prove the following elements in a claim for fraud in the inducement: (1) a representation; (2) material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to its truth; (4) with intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) resulting injury. Broederdorf v. Bachelor, 129 F.Supp.3d 182, 198 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Successfully pled, such contracts are voidable. Giannone v. Ayne Institute, 290 F.Supp.2d 553, 564 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

However, in Pennsylvania, such claims are subject to the parole evidence rule. If the court finds that the agreement at issue constitutes “a writing that represents the ‘entire contract between the parties,’ then the court may not consider ‘preliminary negotiations, conversations[,] verbal agreements,’ or any other extrinsic evidence of representations made by the parties prior to the execution of the written contract.” Batoff v. Charbonneau, 130 F.Supp.3d 957, 970 (E.D. Pa. 2015). And so, the parole evidence rule will bar the admission of statements necessary to establish a fraud in the inducement claim, resulting in its dismissal. For instance, in Batoff, the court dismissed the fraud in the inducement claim because the settlement agreement clearly represented the entire contract between the parties through its integration clause. In a similar case, the District Court dismissed a fraud in the inducement claim because the contract expressly stated, “This Agreement contains the whole agreement between Seller and Buyer, and there are no other terms,” which triggered the parole evidence rule. Charlton v. Gallo, 2010 WL 653155, at *4 (E.D. Pa. 2010).

For more information, call our business lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Website Operator Denied Copyright Protection

By ,

A recent Central District of California decision shed some light on the application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) Section 512(c) safe harbor provision. Under the safe harbor, online service providers that meet certain requirements may avoid liability for damages that may arise from infringing content uploaded by service users. In Greg Young Publishing, Inc. (GYPI) v. Zazzle, Inc. (Zazzle), the court addressed the question of whether Section 512(c) safe harbor may protect an online service provider that commercially exploited infringing content.

Zazzle operates a website on which users may upload images. Other users may have the images printed on various merchandise including coffee mugs, posters, and t-shirts. The users typically do not own the images and have not obtained authorization from the owners to upload them. Zazzle does not ensure that images are not infringing, rather the company manufactures the product once it is ordered, delivers it to the purchaser, and pays a royalty to the user who uploaded the image.

Zazzle displayed 41 paintings owned by GYPI and created consumer products for sale from the paintings. GYPI sued Zazzle for copyright infringement and Zazzle asserted Section 512(c) safe harbor as an affirmative defense. GYPI argued that Zazzle could not rely upon safe harbor because: (1) Zazzle is not a service provider, (2) Zazzle knew that their services infringed upon GYPI’s copyright, and (3) Zazzle had the right and ability to control the infringing activity, choosing to exploit the paintings for financial benefit.

Case Argument

First, GYPI argued that Zazzle is not a service provider because it does not accept and display user-submitted images, but also manufactures and sells products based on those images. The court rejected this argument, finding that Zazzle was unquestionably a provider of online services and therefore a service provider within the definition of that term in Section 512(c) safe harbor.

Second, GYPI argued that Zazzle had specific knowledge of the infringing content, rendering Zazzle ineligible for safe harbor protection. The court held that a service provider only has such knowledge when the copyright holder submits a DMCA-compliant or a third party submits a sufficiently specific complaint. Therefore, GYPI’s complaints to Zazzle about infringing content and the fact that GYPI sent Zazzle a catalogue of images for them to check for infringement, were not enough to constitute specific knowledge.

Finally, the court held that Zazzle received a financial benefit from, and that it had the right and ability to control, the infringing activity. The court acknowledged that Zazzle had the ability to remove infringing content, terminate repeat infringers’ accounts, and engage in limited monitoring of the site. However, this does not amount to a right and ability to control, which only exists when a service provider plays a more active role in user content. This happens specifically when the service provider exerts substantial influence over activities such as selection, monitoring, and marketing of user content.

In this case, the court held that Zazzle did exert the substantial influence necessary to render it unable to be shielded by Section 512(c) safe harbor because Zazzle’s content management team approved user’s orders; the subsequent automated nature of the process is irrelevant. Therefore, Zazzle will be liable for copyright infringement damages resulting from the sale of products displaying the protected images.

Philadelphia Intellectual Property Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Copyright Disputes

Philadelphia intellectual property lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent clients in copyright disputes throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, including Philadelphia and South Jersey. Contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600 to discuss your case.

Tortious Interference as applied by Pennsylvania Courts

By ,

“One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.” Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein, 393 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1978).

This duty of non-interference applies whether or not there is a contract with a third party See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (b) (1979)( “there is a general duty not to interfere intentionally with another’s reasonable business expectancies of trade with third persons, whether or not they are secured by contract…). This duty also applies to contracts that are terminable at will. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (g) (1979).  “Under Pennsylvania law, to succeed on a claim for tortious interference with existing or prospective business relationships, a party must show:

(1) The existence of a contractual or prospective contractual or economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party

(2) Purposeful action by the defendant, specifically intended to harm an existing relationship or intended to prevent a prospective relation from occurring

(3) The absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant

(4) Legal damage to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct and

(5) For prospective contracts, a reasonable likelihood that the relationship would have occurred but for the defendant’s interference.”

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including those involving tortious interference. To discuss your case with a Philadelphia business lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Court Rules on Copyright

By ,

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, holding that the decorative features on cheerleading uniforms are protected by federal copyright law. The issue before the court was what was the appropriate test to determine whether a feature of a useful article, such as an article of clothing, is protected under the 1976 Copyright Act’s Section 101. The Court set out to resolve a widespread disagreement as to what testing standard is most appropriate.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion. He wrote that an artistic feature of a uniform’s design can be copyrighted if it can be perceived as a two or three-dimensional work of art that stands separate from the uniform itself. The analysis applies equally to all “useful articles.” In addition, the feature must qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the uniform.

Varsity Brands manufactures cheerleading uniforms and athletic apparel. Varsity has more than 200 copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs consisting of various patterns, chevrons, and shapes. Designers create concepts that consist of original combinations, positionings, and arrangements of elements and do not consider functionality or the ease of actually producing uniforms. Varsity sued Star Athletica, who also markets cheerleading uniforms, after they allegedly copied two-dimensional art designs that Varsity had copyrighted. The Court held that the uniforms at issue met the requirements set forth by the newly devised test.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, finding that Star Athletica’s designs looked like generic pictures of cheerleader uniforms. He compared the situation to a pair of old shoes in a Van Gogh painting—stating that it would not qualify as a shoe design copyright, though the painting itself would be copyrightable.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the majority’s judgment, but not its opinion. She said that designs are not designs of useful articles, but rather are themselves copyrightable graphic works reproduced on useful articles. She found that the designs were standalone works of sculptural art that were covered by Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle All Types of Trademark Litigation

If you are seeking representation in any type of business, copyright, or trademark matter, the Philadelphia trademark litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are available to answer your questions. To schedule a consultation with us, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Future of the Overtime Rule

By ,

Last year, the Department of Labor issued a new ruling for overtime pay extending the maximum salary threshold a worker can earn and still be eligible for overtime to $47,500.  The new rule, which was set to take effect on December 1, 2016, would enable approximately 4 million more workers to become eligible for overtime pay.  However, in November of 2016, a federal court judge in Texas temporarily blocked the rule, holding that it does not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act on the grounds that the Labor Department may not decide which workers qualify for overtime based only on their salary.  The Department of Justice under President Obama appealed this decision.

With the law temporarily blocked and a new administration in place, the future of the overtime rule is uncertain.  The federal court in Texas has given the DOJ until May 1, 2017 to file a brief stating its position.  Aside from the uncertainty of whether the DOJ pursues its appeal, another issue is whether the Department of Labor intends to simply repeal the new rule, or issue an alternative rule.  The current salary threshold below which workers qualify for overtime wages is just $23,660 per year.  Millions of workers will be impacted by the future of the overtime rule and their fates hang in the balance.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Overtime and Wage Disputes

If you have an employment concern or wage dispute issue, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have the experience to help you achieve an optimal outcome. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation about your case or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia and we serve clients in Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia Passes Wage Equity Bill

By ,

In an effort to close the wage gap between men and women, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed a bill preventing employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The Wage Equity Bill makes Philadelphia the first major American city to ban employers from asking candidates what they were paid at previous jobs. Companies in violation of the new ordinance face fines of up to $2,000.

The bill, first introduced in September 2016, is designed to eliminate the income disparity between men and women. According to a 2015 United States Census Bureau report, women make 79 cents for every dollar that men make. This discrepancy exists regardless of experience, education, or industry. The Pew Research Center also reports that as of 2015, women earn 83% of men’s hourly wages.

The rationale behind the bill is that if women are paid less than what they deserve at beginning of their careers, and potential employers base their salary on previous jobs, they will never catch up to their male counterparts. Though similar legislation already exists in Massachusetts, Philadelphia is the first major city to ban salary inquiries. New York State and Pennsylvania are also considering passing wage equity bills.

The City Council passed the bill with a unanimous vote, but it is already experiencing some pushback from one of the city’s largest employers – Comcast. The media giant, with headquarters in Center City Philadelphia, has already vowed to challenge the ban in court on grounds that it violates employers’ free speech. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce also opposes the bill, saying it gives the perception that the city is “anti-business,” and discourages new employers from setting up shop in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Wage Disputes

The team of Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green understands the complexities of employment law matters. Our attorneys represent employees in all aspects of employment law, including wage disputes. Call our Center City Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

We serve clients throughout the Greater Philadelphia area including Delaware County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia County, and the towns of Bala Cynwyd, Merion Station, Wynnewood, Darby, Narberth, Upper Darby, Sharon Hill, Cheltenham, Clifton Heights, Folcroft, Lansdowne, Drexel Hill, Elkins Park, Havertown, Glenolden, Ardmore, Gladwyne, Wyncote, Norwood, Holmes and Haverford, as well as New Jersey.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers: UBS Seeks to Overturn FINRA Ruling

By ,

Swiss financial wirehouse UBS is seeking to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ruling and $18.5 million award on the basis that two out of three arbitrators on the case were not impartial. UBS claims that one of the clients involved in the case went against their financial recommendations, a decision leading to substantial losses. However, the crux of USB’s case to overturn the award is their assertion that arbitrators failed to disclose concerning personal and professional financial details prior to their involvement in the case.

The case was initially decided in favor of the plaintiffs, a married couple, who won damages based on UBS sale of closed-end funds of Puerto Rican bonds, claiming unsuitability and breach of fiduciary duty. The claimants also accuse UBS of violating Puerto Rico’s own financial statutes. The couple initiated their arbitration a year after the Puerto Rican bond market collapsed. They allege that UBS misled clients about the potential vulnerability of their investments, while artificially inflating the local demand for bonds.

A FINRA three-member arbitration panel found that UBS failed in their obligation to these clients. FINRA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the integrity of broker-dealer industry and protecting investors. FINRA is not a part of the government, but is authorized by Congress. FINRA supervises more than 635,000 brokers and 3,900 securities firms.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Resolve the Toughest Business Law Cases

Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green bring experience and knowledge to business law cases. If you are seeking representation in a FINRA matter, call our Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss your situation.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Third Circuit Rules That Overtime Class Action Cannot Proceed In Arbitration

By ,

Recently, the Third Circuit weighed in on the issue of whether it is up to courts or arbitrators to decide if a class action lawsuit should be adjudicated in court, or in an arbitral forum. This case also dealt with the issue of whether an employment agreement that is silent on the issue of class arbitration permits employees to proceed on a class-wide basis on that basis. In Opalinski v. Robert Half International, the 3rd Circuit sided against the plaintiffs who wished to proceed on a class wide basis in arbitration. The case involved employees of the placement firm, Robert Half.

The plaintiffs were two former staffing managers at Robert Half in New Jersey. The men claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay, and wrongfully denied such pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defense argued that when the men signed their employment contracts, they waived their right to resolve employment disputes in court. Their contracts provided that such disputes must be submitted to arbitration. However, their contracts were silent in regards to class wide arbitration. The two men brought an action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members who were denied overtime pay.

Shortly after filing the claim, a United States Dihttps://overtimestrict Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the employees’ individual claims. However, the district court determined that the arbitral forum had jurisdiction to decide whether class wide arbitration was permissible.  The arbitrator found that such claims could proceed on a class basis in arbitration – and when the defendant sought to overturn this ruling in district court, the trial court sided with the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed this ruling and the 3rd Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the decision lies with the courts. The United States Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on appeal. After the case was remanded, the district court granted Robert Half’s motion to dismiss, finding that parties cannot be compelled to submit to class wide arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding such.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision yet again, and the 3rd Circuit recently ruled against them, finding it had already “explicitly decided,” in a precedential opinion in this same case, that the question of arbitrability of class claims is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Types of Wage Dispute Cases

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely handle FLSA claims involving unpaid overtime. Our respected Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers are prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers Discuss the Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law

By ,

Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (“UTPCPL”) is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law. It seeks to prevent “[un]fair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce….” Id. § 201–3. Its aim is to protect the public from unfair or deceptive business practices.

The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone who “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” because of an unlawful method, act or practice. See id. § 201–9.2(a). Upon a finding of liability, the court has the discretion to award “up to three times the actual damages sustained” and provide any additional relief the court deems proper. Id.  There are 20 enumerated practices which constitute actionable “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Id. § 201–2(4)(i)–(xx). The UTPCPL also contains a catchall provision which refers to “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion of or misunderstanding.” Id. § 201–2(4)(xxi).

In order to establish a private right of action under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she detrimentally relied upon the deceptive practice of the defendant and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of this reliance. Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 863 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2004).  It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the level of reliance that normally accompanies a common law fraud claim.  This means a plaintiff must show not just reliance on the misrepresentation, but also that the reliance was justifiable.  Id. at 11.

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Consumers in Claims for Fraud and Unfair Trade Practices

If you have been defrauded or subject to an unfair or deceptive business practice, you may have a valid claim under the UTPCPL, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia consumer fraud lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.