Case law

NOTHSTEIN v. USA CYCLING

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 2020

.; see Amicus Curiae Br. at 8–9 (“States have repeatedly recognized that broad qualified immunity provisions promote mandatory reporting.” … Nov. 1, 2013), is not instructive (even if it was somehow binding) because the defendant’s conduct in that case clearly fell under the protection of immunity.

Henkel Corp. v. Degremont

136 F.R.D. 88 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1991

(“Immunity from service ... is extended to a party who is induced to come into the jurisdiction by the fraud or deceit of the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney in order to be served with process.”). 3 The Court of Appeals … Davis did not establish a per se rule that service subsequent to good faith settlement negotiations is always proper.

KOENKE v. SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2021

is akin to a government official’s defense of qualified immunity, which is often raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302-03 (3d Cir. 2006). … If the Supreme Court intended to establish such exceptions, it would have done so.

United States v. Cantor

345 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1972

Cantor, along with seventeen others, was charged in Bill of Indictment 70-454 with conspiracy and using interstate telephone facilities to conduct an illegal bookmaking establishment. … His assertions clearly lack any substance. The jury simply adopted the overwhelming evidence of guilt and convicted Jerome Cantor. There is no reason to grant a new trial.

Richburg v. Palisades Collection LLC

247 F.R.D. 457 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2008

To establish the bona fide error defense a defendant has to establish (1) the violation of the FDCPA was unintentional, (2) the FDCPA violation was due to an underlying bona fide error, and (3) the bona fide error occurred … First, the error was clearly bona fide since the DOE, and not the defendant, computed the time for repayment improperly. Id. at 538 .

HALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2024

Passing muster at one time does not immunize him from later failing to do so. … To establish a prima facie claim of religious discrimination, a plaintiff must come forward with evidence that he was a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for the position

Brown v. Continental Casualty Co.

348 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2004

Brown is clearly disabled and unable to return to work at this time.” Joint Ex. 5, at 128-24. After reviewing Ms. … This pattern of extreme weakness following exertion would also clearly limit Ms. Brown’s ability to perform regular work. Also, since Ms.

Davenport v. Albatross Tanker Corp.

349 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1972

I conclude, therefore, that the record clearly establishes a “continued willful neglect of duty at sea” as of March 14, 1969, and that the statement in the logbook that “the above constitutes . . . a continuous disregard … The qualifying words “for example” makes clear that the list following was not intended to be a complete itemization of the statutory exceptions. Chambers v.

DALESSIO v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2021

(Section C.5.2.2.1.2.1).4 Given this record, the undisputed evidence establishes that BLM had the exclusive responsibility and control over the maintenance and safety of the Property when … Numerous courts have found that training and supervising independent contractors are clearly discretionary functions of the government. See, e.g., Chapman, 480 F.

United States v. Baynes

400 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 1975

The question in Aeon was whether wiretap applications signed by an acting assistant attorney general, not specially qualified to approve electronic surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (1) must be suppressed as facially insufficient … Clearly, an aggrieved party may impeach the information submitted by the government to the approving court. In Giordano , this occurred.

PACIULETE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 10, 2025

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . .” Id. at 327. … Paciulete refers to her gender in discussing her ADA claim, but gender does not qualify as a disability.

Leuthe v. OFFICE OF FINANCIAL INST. ADJUDICATION

977 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 1997

the United States or any instrumentality thereof, he may not rely on the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the government's sovereign immunity … It is equally well established that Congress may provide whatever procedure that it deems appropriate for judicial review of administrative orders. Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 419 (3rd Cir.1996).

JEAN-PHILIPPE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2026

(permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed event though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual capacity” where the allegations clearly … he is entitled to immunity.

In Re Penn Central Securities Litigation

347 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1972

Defendants’ motions raise the issue of what factors qualify a merger as a purchase or sale for the purpose of § 10(b). … The broad antifraud purposes of the statute and rule would clearly be furthered by their application to this type of situation.

WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, Washington’s claim under Rule 588 is still pending.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

632 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 1986

In fact, its denial of severance pay to older employees clearly violated the' ADEA. … Under this pattern, a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing: (1) that he belongs to a racial minority, (2) that he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, (3)

Holman v. Gillis

88 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2000

Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the state court decisions involved in his third, fourth, sixth, and eighth claims were not “contrary to,” nor did they involve an “unreasonable application of, clearly established … In his objections, petitioner contends that he “was clearly prejudiced by the vouching” and that “the things the Prosecutor vouched for was [sic] clearly rehearsed.”

BURK v. EASON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2021

Burk filed a grievance over the issue and received a response that he did not qualify for the program “because of the color of my skin and that my grievance was denied.” (Id.) … As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons.

Kevaun Green, Sr. v. School District of Philadelphia

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2026

But Plaintiff has not established any “pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees” that would establish that a failure to train amounted to deliberate indifference. … Mass. 2022) (“Most courts have rejected the argument that an IEP qualifies as a contract.”); Schafer v. Hicksville Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 06-CV-2531, 2011 WL 1322903, at *20 (E.D.N.Y.

Holmgren v. Rocco Farms Foods, Inc.

410 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 1976

It is, however, reversible error to prevent an expert from testifying on questions which he was qualified to answer. Bair v. American Motors Corp., *63 473 F.2d 740 (3d Cir. 1973). … In this case, the expertise of the witness was unchallenged and his background was such that he clearly possessed the necessary knowledge that would qualify a witness to give the requested opinion.