Claire Murtha

Representative Matters: Neiman v. West Reading Borough - In this Civil Rights action, the plaintiff alleged First and Fourth Amendment violations arising from a school mask policy dispute and a subsequent police encounter on school property. After the plaintiff refused to comply with a school district's COVID-era mask requirement and was later directed by police to leave a school playground, he claimed the brief interaction constituted an unlawful seizure and infringement on his constitutional rights. Rolf Kroll and Claire Murtha moved to dismiss, successfully arguing that a short, non-coercive police directive to disperse did not amount to a Fourth Amendment seizure and did not implicate protected First Amendment activity. The court adopted Attorney Murtha's analysis and dismissed all federal claims with prejudice.; Saterstad v. Derry Township - In this Civil Rights action, the plaintiff asserted federal and state law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, selective enforcement, retaliation, municipal liability, and witness tampering after being arrested, handcuffed, and transported for processing on theft charges that were later dismissed. Rolf Kroll successfully argued that the temporary liberty restrictions associated with arrest and booking were insufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure, defeating the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims. After the federal court relinquished jurisdiction, Claire Murtha moved to dismiss the remaining state law claims, demonstrating that the plaintiff failed to properly transfer the claims and that the Township was entitled to absolute immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The court agreed and dismissed all remaining claims, entering judgment in favor of the defendants.; Atiyeh v. Gettysburg Borough - In this Civil Rights action, a group of Gettysburg business owners challenged amendments to a municipal parking ordinance, alleging violations of Equal Protection, substantive due process, and the First Amendment, and claiming the Borough acted selectively and in retaliation for the plaintiffs' prior success in a zoning enforcement dispute. Rolf Kroll successfully obtained dismissal of the Equal Protection and substantive due process claims by demonstrating that the ordinance drew rational distinctions between hotels and other businesses based on differing parking needs and was rationally related to legitimate municipal interests. On the First Amendment retaliation claim, Rolf Kroll and Claire Murtha later secured summary judgment by establishing that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence showing retaliatory animus was a motivating factor for any Borough Council member. On April 8, 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed, upholding the Borough's authority to regulate public parking and rejecting all constitutional claims.