Pennsylvania Litigation Blog : Pennsylvania Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Barley Snyder Law Firm : Serving Lancaster, Reading, York, Chambersburg

The Home Improvement Contractor Registration Act has become the law in Pennsylvania and is due to go into effect this Summer. At least part of the goal of this Act is to curb the impact of “fly-by-night” contractors by requiring all contractors that work in the residential home improvement area to register in a statewide database. The Act is designed to carry enforcement provisions and serve the purposes of protecting the public as well as legitimate contractors. It is expected that a form contract will be promulgated prior to the effective date of the Act. Highlighted points include:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 13, 2009, Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an E-discovery spoliation sanction in the case of Kvitka v. The Puffin Co., LLC. The case involved a dispute between Plaintiff, a collector of French and German antique dolls, and the publisher of Antique Doll Collector Magazine. After fielding complaints of disparagement from other advertisers, American Doll Collector (“ADC”) refused to continue running Plaintiff’s ads.

 Plaintiff discovered the exclusion and wrote to ADC’s advertising director that, “Apparently, this entire thing has a lot to do with some emails.” When Plaintiff later threatened suit, an ADC attorney wrote Plaintiff instructing her to preserve her computer’s hard drive and all the disputed emails.

Plaintiff originally sued in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff claimed that, while that case was pending, her laptop began acting “wonky” and she obtained a replacement from her company’s IT department. A week later, she threw her old laptop in the trash, but failed to take any efforts to preserve the emails. Plaintiff then discontinued the state court action and re-filed suit in Federal Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an opinion issued by Chief Justice Castille, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and determined that the Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Twp. was correct in determining that the Exeter Township Zoning Ordinance was exclusionary in limiting the size of a billboard to 25 square feet. The Supreme Court held that the owner of the billboard in question, Land Displays, was successful in presenting substantial evidence to enable the ZHB to conclude that a billboard is a legitimate means of displaying and communicating an advertising message to passing drivers on roads and highways, that a 25 sq. ft. sign is too small to convey this message and that a 300 sq. ft. sign is large enough for that purpose. The Court concluded that Land Displays proved a de facto exclusion.

Had the Supreme Court concluded otherwise it would have had a severe adverse impact upon the billboard industry in Pennsylvania. Ordinances in local municipalities would have been able to prevent industry standard size signs and thereby effectively preventing any new bill board signs to be erected. The industry had filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Land Displays.

The Court also remanded the case back to the Commonwealth Court because it had not rendered a decision on the issue raised by the Township that Route 422 presents a safety issue when signs are erected anywhere along that route and not just in the areas of Route 422 which the ZHB concluded there was no safety issue. We see no evidence on record which would enable the Court to overrule the well reasoned opinion of the ZHB on that issue. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link