Pamela C. Brecht will be presenting “Qui Tam Litigation,” at the New Jersey Association For Justice Educational Foundation, Inc.’s Boardwalk Seminar 2014 on May 2, 2014 in Atlantic City, NJ. Read More
Marc S. Raspanti will present at Seton Hall Law on April 28, 2014. He will present on “The Ban of Off-Label Promotion and the False Claims Act: Analyzing a Decentralized, Public-Private Enforcement Regime.” Read More
John R. Brumberg and Brad A. Matta authored “Lessons Pennsylvania Can Learn From Colorado,” which was published in the Pittsburgh Business Times.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Business Times on April 25, 2014 on page 23. It has been reprinted by the Pittsburgh Business Times and further reproduction by any other party is strictly prohibited.
Related Information:
Lessons Pennsylvania Can Learn From Colorado Read More
Daniel J. McGravey and Sarah R. Lavelle will present “Managing Employees’ Bad Habits and Crafting Effective Wellness Programs” at PBI’s Employment Law Institute on April 25, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA. Read More
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), multiple corporations may be considered a worker’s joint employer. A joint employer relationship can exist where one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. In such situations, each joint employer may be held liable for the other’s violations of the FLSA. In Thompson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network, No. 12-3828 (3rd Cir. April 3, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit discussed the role of paychecks in the joint employer analysis.
Patricia Thompson was hired as a mortgage underwriter by Security Atlantic Mortgage Company (“Security Atlantic”). Several months later, she and other employees were instructed to complete new job applications to work for Real Estate Mortgage Network (“REMN”). From that day forward, Thompson’s paychecks were issued by REMN rather than Security Atlantic. The district court granted a motion to dismiss Thompson’s claim that Security Atlantic and REMN were joint employers under the FLSA. In determining that Thompson’s employment with Security Atlantic was separate and distinct from her work for REMN, the trial court apparently focused on the names appearing on her paychecks. The Third Circuit disagreed and held that who issued the paycheck was not dispositive. Rather, Thompson had also alleged that: a) an employee of REMN provided her with training immediately after she was hired by Security Atlantic; b) REMN was described as Security Atlantic’s sister company and c) she and virtually all other Security Atlantic employees were abruptly and seamlessly integrated into REMN’s business. According to the Third Circuit, these allegations supported Thompson’s contention that the two companies shared authority over hiring and firing practices. As a result, the court remanded the case for discovery on payroll and taxation documents, disciplinary records, internal corporate communications and leadership and ownership information.
Thompson demonstrates that form does not trump substance. Read More
Mark Gordon, a partner with Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, has been selected by ALM as one of the Top Rated Lawyers in the United States in the practice area of Transportation. The ALM publishes more than 20 international legal publications, including The American Lawyer.
Mr. Gordon is a founding partner of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP. He has an international reputation for his expertise in the area of risk management. He has been designated as one of the top 50 attorneys in Pittsburgh by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers for his focus on business litigation and has been included in each edition of The Best Lawyers in America since 1995 for his work in the workers’ compensation field. LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® also recognizes Mr. Gordon as an AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, the highest such rating available to any individual lawyer in both legal ability and ethical standards.
Mr. Gordon was instrumental in the creation of the firm’s Risk Management & Workers’ Compensation Practice Group, which is engaged in the oversight of litigation for the firm’s clients globally. He is also a member of the firm’s Litigation and Transportation Practice Groups.
Mr. Gordon received his B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He chairs annual events for the American Cancer Society. Read More
Gaetan J. Alfano, a name partner in the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, was recently named Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners.
The Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners is empowered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The PA Board of Law Examiners is sanctioned to recommend the admissions of persons to the bar and the practice of law. The board is also responsible for recommending rules pertaining to admission to the bar.
Mr. Alfano is Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. He is recognized as a top litigator by his peers and he has extensive experience in commercial disputes, employment disputes, insurance insolvency and white collar criminal defense. Mr. Alfano has been nominated and selected by his peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer every year from 2004 through 2014, an honor reserved by 5% of the Pennsylvania Bar.
Mr. Alfano is a member of the American, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Philadelphia Bar Associations.
Mr. Alfano is heavily involved in community service through the Justinian Society, a group of Italian American lawyers and judges. He has held a number of offices within the Society and its charitable branch, the Justinian Foundation, where he currently serves as Treasurer. Read More
Michael A. Morse will be presenting at the HCCA 2014 Compliance Institute in San Diego, CA on March 30, 2014. He will present “False Claims Act Developments.”
Related Information:
Program Information Read More
The United States Supreme Court has decided to review 6 patent cases during this term, which is more than it reviewed in the entire decade of the 1990’s. This increased scrutiny may bring dramatic changes to how patent infringement cases are litigated over the next few years.
On January 22, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, Case No. 12-1128 (Breyer, Justice). The Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee to establish that there is no infringement, the burden of proving infringement remains with the patentee. This conclusion rested upon settled case law establishing that: (1) a patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural, leaving substantive rights unchanged; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on February 26, 2014 on two cases dealing with attorney fee awards in patent infringement cases. In Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 12-1184, the Supreme Court must decide whether the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part Brooks test for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriated a district court’s broad discretionary authority to award attorney fees, based on equitable considerations, to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and Supreme Court precedent. Section 285 provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Federal Circuit’s decision in Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) held that absent litigation misconduct or patent procurement fraud, sanctions may be imposed against the patentee only if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith (i.e., Read More
