Marcel Ingram v. George Dunbar

USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvani

In Re: Konata Matthews

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Sheldon Hannibal v. Secretary PA Dept Corr

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Pleading Failures in Monell Litigation

The doctrine of municipal liability in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has been extensively criticized through widespread agreement that municipal liability claims are difficult for plaintiffs to win. Commentators generally blame stringent doctrinal and pleading standards for plaintiffs’ low rates of success. This Article reveals another important contributing factor: the poor quality of many pleadings filed on behalf of civil rights plaintiffs. We present original empirical research documenting widespread pleading failures, or omissions of basic doctrinal elements. Our research demonstrates that pleading failures are common: an analysis of the complaint in every case that resulted in a federal appellate decision in 2019 reveals that 56.5% of complaints filed by represented parties failed even to state the elements of any theory of municipal liability, let alone plead those elements sufficient to meet the demanding Iqbal pleading standard. The poor quality of civil rights complaints, while troubling, also offers an opportunity. Given that the current Supreme Court is unlikely to revise municipal liability doctrine, advocates would do well to focus efforts on improving the quality of complaints filed on behalf of civil rights plaintiffs. To this end, we identify areas in which complaints are particularly lacking and suggest ways to improve both the overall quality of attorney work product and the environment in which civil rights lawyering takes place

Brian Constantine v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance Div

USDC for the District of New Jerse

Puerto Rico: The Island of Infringement? An Analysis of The Intersectionality of Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity and Federal False Endorsement Claims

This Note delves into the complex legal landscape of Puerto Rico’s application of sovereign immunity in the context of federal false endorsement claims, focusing particularly on the recent case involving the unauthorized use of Hall of Fame baseball player Roberto Clemente’s name and likeness. It critically examines the intersectionality of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity with the Lanham Act’s Section 43(a), highlighting the challenges faced in enforcing intellectual property rights within unincorporated territories of the United States. The analysis begins by exploring the historical basis of sovereign immunity and its evolution from common law to the intricacies of the Eleventh Amendment. It then shifts to discuss the unique political and legal status of Puerto Rico, emphasizing its impact on the application of sovereign immunity in modern jurisprudence. The core of the Note addresses the litigation surrounding the misuse of Roberto Clemente’s name in government-promoted products, positing that Puerto Rico’s status and federal laws provide a unique legal framework that complicates the otherwise straight-forward application of sovereign immunity. Further, the Note assesses the implications of recent judicial decisions that may influence the ongoing debate over Puerto Rico’s sovereign immunity and its capacity to engage in commerce that infringes upon intellectual property rights. It argues for a reevaluation of traditional sovereign immunity in the context of federal territories to better align with the realities of modern intellectual property law and commercial practices. Ultimately, this Note advocates for a legislative and judicial reconsideration of how sovereign immunity is applied in territories like Puerto Rico, particularly in cases involving intellectual property. The Note concludes with recommendations for clearer guidelines that reconcile the need for sovereign immunity with the protection of intellectual property rights, suggesting potential judicial and legislative reforms to address these complex issues

Congress could soon spell the end of employment arbitration—but it’s not all good news for American workers.

Employment arbitration has become a dirty word on Capitol Hill. Congressman Hank Johnson claims that arbitration allows employers to stack the deck against the little guy for the 60 million employees bound by arbitration agreements. The Economic Policy Institute calls it an epidemic that is undermining decades of progress in labor rights

Can Too Much Clarity Cause Confusion? A Case Study of \u3ci\u3eMcCalop v. State\u3c/i\u3e

In criminal trials, few elements wield as much influence over the outcome as expert testimony. Expert testimony serves as the bridge between complex subject matter and the understanding of lay jurors, often occupying a pivotal position in the pursuit of justice. Indeed, expert testimony can be the lynchpin on which a jury’s verdict turns. Picture a courtroom filled with jurors, each presumed to lack a deep understanding of the intricate dynamics of domestic abuse and the profound effects of battered person syndrome on individuals trapped in violent relationships. In pursuit of justice, these jurors lean on a singular source—an expert with years of invaluable experience—to untangle complex concepts, enabling them to digest the evidence presented by both sides and make a well-informed decision to render a fair verdict