List of Representative Cases

Employment and Labor Cases:

 

Jane Doe v. Fed-Ex (2016) (executive employment contract dispute and separation related matter) 

 

Environmental Cases:

 

Patrick et. al .v. FirstEnergy, No. 08-cv-1025 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (Mass tort and property diminution class action involving coal fly ash)

 

Price et. al. v. FirstEnergy, No. 08-cv-1030 (W.D. Pa. 2008)(Mass tort and medical monitoring case involving coal fly ash)

 

Hartle et. al. v. FirstEnergy, No. 08-cv-1019 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (Personal injury and medical monitoring involving coal fly ash)

 

Stephanie Hallowich v. Range Resources, et. al. (CCP Washington County, 2009) (globally recognized hydraulic fracturing case involving property diminution and personal injury claims, first amendment rights of minors)

 

Diess et. al. v. Pa. DOT, et. al., (CCP Allegheny County, 2008) (fly ash property diminution claims)

 

Russitano v. Rubright, et. al. (CCP Berks County, 2009) (battery contamination and property dimunition case). 

 

Class Action – Product Liability, Mass Tort, Consumer, Technology, and Civil Rights:

 

In Re Zoloft Litigation – Woodward v. Pfizer, Inc. No. 05-cv-3764 (E.D. Pa. ); Postigo v. Pfizer,Inc., No. 05-cv-3414 (D.N.J.); Finlinson v. Pfizer, Inc. No. 05-cv-6804 (S.D.N.Y.); Harrison v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 05-cv-6806 (S.D.N.Y.)

 

In Re Wellbutrin Litigation – Canizaro v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 001064 August Term 2005 (Phila. CCP); Davidson v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 003688, April Term 2005 (Phila. CCP); McGaha v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 003313, August Term 2005 (Phila. CCP); Martin v. GlaxoSmithKline No. 06-80456 (S.D. Florida)

 

In Re Paxil Mass Tort Program (MTP) “On Drug” Litigation – No. 1503, October Term 2004 (Phila. CCP)

 

In Re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation -- MDL Docket No. 1629, Master File No. 04-10981 (D. Mass)

 

In Re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation --- MDL Docket No. 08-1943 (D. Minn)

 

In Re Vioxx Litigation --- Duenas v. Merck & Co., No. ATL-L-5147-05-MT (Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County)

 

In Re Risperdal/Seroquel/Zyprexa Litigation – Ryals v. J&J (Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County)

 

Koehler v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. SSX-L-000097-5 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Sussex County)

 

Hughes Communications Inc and Hughes Network Systems, LLC. No. 08-04596 (E.D. Pa.)

 

In Re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 08-mc-0511 (DDC).

 

In Re Gadolinium Based Contrast Agents Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:08-gd-5000, MDL No. 1909 (N.D. Ohio) 

 

In Re Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Litigation, Case No. 279 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County).

 

In Re Human Tissue Products Liability Litigation, No. 06-135, MDL No. 1763 (D.N.J.). --- Sechtin (Lead Case)

 

In re: Avandia Litigation, (CCP Philadelphia, February Term 2008, No. 2733).

 

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Cases:

 

Stiles v. Dr. Gillick, Scranton Orthopedic Specialists & Community Medical Center Healthcare System, No. 2005-CIV-3960 (Lackawanna CCP)

 

Kearns v. Dr. Deck, Mercy Hospital a/d/b/a Mercy Health Partners, No. 06-CV-5854 (Lackawanna CCP) (Personal Injury)

 

Knowles v. Black & Decker, Dewalt Industrial Tool Co., K&C Custom Building of NJ, LLC, No. L-0658-08 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Cumberland County)

 

Other:

 

Chang  Construction Group, Inc. v. Rennie, SC-10-04-05-3435 (C.C.P. Philadelphia, 2010).

 

Reported Cases:

 

Walter v. Hughes Communs., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. California, 2010) (recognizing Plaintiff’s claims against an Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) for  violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), id. §§ 17500 et seq., and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),  Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d)).

 

Bearden v. Wyeth, 482 F. Supp. 2d 614 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (Court applying choice of law rules in a product liability case where the “relevant inquiry is the extent to which one state rather than another has demonstrated, by reason of its policies and their connection and relevance to the matter in dispute, a priority of interest in the application of its rule of law”). 

 

Patrick et. al .v. FirstEnergy, No. 08-cv-1025 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (Court dismissing Defendant's Daubert challenge and allowing Plaintiffs' air dispersion modeler's use of AERMOD to render legal expert opinion).  

 

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Robert Wilkey (2017-2018)