The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that a contractual no-hire or “no poach” provision in a services contract between sophisticated business entities is not enforceable under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This important case is entitled Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, et. al., case no. 31 WAP 2019.

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Bars “No-Hire” Clauses Between Businesses

Every year, the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspection updates contractors and subcontractors on the requirements needed to operate in Philadelphia. While some requirements have been longstanding, workers and contractors should be aware and mindful of what is required of them to be permitted to perform construction and to help keep workers safe. To operate construction services in Philadelphia, one set of rules a contractor must follow is the Contractor Operational requirements. These are codes of conduct for both contractors and subcontractors which require, but are not limited to: a valid license, necessary operating permits, prohibition on selling or transferring licenses and permits, and maintaining demographic information at a job site such as addresses and contact numbers for key personnel and companies.

Continue Reading The Importance of Complying With the 2021 Philadelphia Construction Requirements

Like most events in our lives these days, Sheriff Sales of real estate have gone virtual. Bucks County, Pennsylvania has joined Philadelphia, Montgomery, Berks, Adams, and Monroe Counties in holding virtual county Sheriff Sales. An online auction company, Bid4Assets, is used by each of these counties to produce virtual sales. The Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office has held two virtual town halls to introduce the platform and answer the public’s questions regarding the change.

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Sales Moving to Online Platforms

The Philadelphia Municipal Court issued an Order stopping service of writs of possession and alias writs in residential eviction cases. On November 6, 2020, the court directed that any writs previously issued in any residential case cannot be served until after December 31, 2020. However, landlords can seek relief from the Order with a showing of good cause to serve the writs.

Continue Reading Another Setback for Pennsylvania Landlords

A lawsuit filed by Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Health Department (“ACHD”) against The Cracked Egg, LLC may be transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Cracked Egg is a restaurant located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Following an investigation by the ACHD in August, the restaurant was ordered to close because it did not comply with mask or facial coverings guidelines.

Continue Reading Restaurant’s Challenge to COVID-19 Declarations Could Go to Bankruptcy Court

On September 18, 2015, the Honorable Stephanie A. Mitterhoff, J.S.C. denied YMCA’s Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment as to whether it is a charitable organization and entitled to immunity pursuant to the Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53-7 (see “CIA”). Judge Mitterhoff found that the core business of the “modern day YMCA” is a fitness center providing gym memberships including classes for various physical activities (e.g. aerobics and racquetball) for a fee.

A comprehensive analysis was conducted by Judge Mitterhoff to determine that the YMCA is not organized exclusively for religious or educational purposes, and that the sole basis for such an argument were documents such as the Articles of Incorporation, Certificates of Incorporation, and Mission Statements, which generally stated that it is an organization established to “promote a moral, spiritual, physical and mental welfare of the young men and boys of the community.”

Continue Reading No Charitable Immunity for YMCA

By way of a decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division in October 2015, a case was remanded for a new trial following the Trial Court’s granting of Motions under N.J.R.E. 702 and determining that the Emergency Medicine expert was “not qualified to render opinions as to the standards of care applicable to either defendant nurse.”

This arises out of the matter of Lauckhardt v. Jeges, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2393. Plaintiff’s emergency medicine expert, Dr. James Bagnell, was offered to provide testimony as to the emergency room doctors and nurses. Even after Dr. Bagnell had substantially completed his testimony, both as to the doctor and the nurses, there was a Motion to bar his testimony as to the accepted standards of emergency nursing care. The Court granted the Motion pursuant to 702 based on the determination that plaintiff’s expert was “not qualified to render opinions of standards of care applicable to either defendant nurse.” The Court did not just strike the expert’s testimony regarding the nursing care, instead provided an instruction that read in substance:

Dr. Bagnell was qualified as an expert in the field of Emergency Medicine and in that regard he can render and did render opinions as to the deviations from the standards of care with regard to Dr. Jeges, but he cannot as a matter of law do that for either of the nurses…


Continue Reading An Emergency Medicine Expert Can Be Qualified to Offer Opinions as to Deviations by Emergency Room Nurses