Case law

Cappalli v. NORDSTROM FSB

155 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 16, 2001

if they establish the interest rate or charge by written agreement. … Since both fees qualify as interest exportable under HOLA § 1463(g) plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of HOLA.

Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna Int'l B.V.

321 F. Supp. 3d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2018

A court should grant jurisdictional discovery unless "the plaintiff's claim is clearly frivolous." Id. … Prior to its abrogation, "Form 18 'effectively immunize[d] a claimant from attack regarding the sufficiency of the pleading.' " Lyda v. CBS Corp. , 838 F.3d 1331 , 1338 (Fed.

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. ARCHITECTUAL STEEL & ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2022

“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or showing that the materials cited do not establish the … Thus, if the claims against the insured made in the underlying complaint clearly lie outside the coverage provided by the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend the insured against such claims.

Perry v. Fleetboston Financial Corp.

229 F.R.D. 105 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2005

As all class members would rely upon the FCRA to establish that Defendant improperly sought and reviewed each putative class member’s credit report, the typicality requirement is clearly met here. … Accordingly, the notice in this case clearly comports with both Rule 23 and the mandates of the due process clause. See Zimmer Paper Prods., Inc. v.

JONES v. NAJERA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2020

Finally, Mallery argues he is entitled to qualified immunity for the search of Jones’s home, that Jones cannot maintain his § 1983 claim for the cell phone searches at this time and that Jones consented to the cell phone … To state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983, the plaintiff must establish both (1) the existence of a conspiracy involving state action; and (2) a deprivation of civil rights in furtherance of the conspiracy by a party

Hall v. Harleysville Insurance

943 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1996

It bases its contention on the Third Circuit’s pronouncement in Baughman that fees are to be recovered only from the party against whom liability has been established, and only for the hours reasonable devoted to establishing … Furthermore, the Third Circuit has quite clearly placed the “ ‘burden on plaintiffs to document the need for a [delay] multiplier.’ ” Keenan v.

Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation v. Dole

676 F. Supp. 635 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1988

Thirdly, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 U.S.C. § 794 ) provides that: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation … The program does nothing to render mass transit systems more accessible to those for whom public transportation is currently unavailable, a clearly expressed goal of the legislators who drafted § 317(c).

United States v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Highways

349 F. Supp. 1370 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 1972

State has also denied that this Court has jurisdiction in respect to a suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and avers that as a sovereign state the Commonwealth is immune, without its consent, from suit or from a … Therefore, the identity of the lien- or, the property subject to the lien and the amount of the lien had been established, and there was nothing more to be done to perfect National’s lien against the contract balances.

Altemose Construction Co. v. Building & Construction Trades Council

443 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1977

Yet, it has been clearly established that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment, when unable to present facts by affidavit or otherwise which would justify a denial of the motion, should apply by affidavit for a … Certain activities of insurance companies are clearly exempt in accordance with the Act. See 481 F.2d at 82 .

MCCURDY v. WETZEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

the claim is legally or factually frivolous.6 A claim is legally frivolous “where ‘[none] of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.”7 A claim is factually frivolous “where the claim’s ‘factual contentions are clearly … An Eighth Amendment violation occurs when a “sufficiently serious” deprivation exists, establishing deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.44 Deliberate indifference is commonly equated to recklessness, meaning

Kier v. F. Lackland & Sons, LLC

72 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2014

Prima Facie Case A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that: (1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain … Defendants do not dispute the first three elements of the prima facie claim, as Plaintiff is African-American, he was qualified for the position of yard worker, and his termination was an adverse employment action.

Monfared v. St. Luke's University Health Network

182 F. Supp. 3d 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2016

She contends that “[t]he arbitration clause is preceded by the qualifying phrase ’[tjhis Letter Agreement,’ thereby indicating that it encompasses solely those disputes as to the subjects identified therein:” Id. at 14. … presumption “derives its legitimacy from” the judicial supposition “that arbitration of a particular dispute is what the parties intended because their express agreement to. arbitrate was validly formed and (absent a provision clearly

Osenbach v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance

135 F. Supp. 3d 315 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2015

Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 , 115 S.Ct. 2137 , 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (The Declaratory Judgment Act “created an opportunity; rather than a duty, to grant a new form of relief to qualifying litigants.”). … Aug. 27, 2008) (finding that the absence of a parallel state court proceeding is not determinative and “is clearly outweighed by the lack of any federal interest in this case”). V.

Howell v. SAM'S CLUB 8160/WAL-MART

959 F. Supp. 260 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1997

[T]o establish a prima facie case for discriminatory employment termination, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) … he was dismissed despite being qualified; and (4) he was ultimately replaced by a person sufficiently outside the protected class to create an inference of discrimination.

In re Certainteed Corp. Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation

269 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2010

Class counsel in this case are more than qualified to represent the putative class members. Class counsel have established that they have substantial experience in litigating class actions and product liability cases. … That information, of course, would be of limited use had it not been clearly written, readable, and presented in a logical manner.

Bernstein v. Ribicoff

192 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 1961

C herewith)— refers in the first instance to the computation of earnings for the purpose of establishing the earnings base to determine entitlement to benefits. … In other words, they were clearly not capital gains derived from the sale or exchange or a capital asset as indicated by the claimant.”

Melville v. American Home Assurance Co.

443 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1977

Applying interest analysis to the question of interspousal tort immunity he found that Pennsylvania, where husband and wife were domiciled, had a valid interest in imposing its standard for immunity whereas Colorado, the … Thus the court clearly felt that Griffith had made Restatement II applicable to contracts.

TAYLOR v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2022

C.S.A. §§ 8541-8564. 10 General immunity and sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania are governed by different statutes in Pennsylvania. … Plaintiff is clearly pursuing the § 1983 claim through a theory of an Eighth Amendment violation and shall be allowed to pursue that theory in front of a jury.

MARLAND v. TRUMP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2020

The statute contains a nonexclusive, exemplary list of items which qualify as “informational materials,” into which the content exchanged by TikTok users clearly falls. … Putting aside the question of what the “intended object” of the Commerce Identification may or may not be, the Government’s interpretation of the informational materials exception is clearly incorrect.

PENN ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CORP. v. PENINSULA COMPONENTS, INC.

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

It argues that Peninsula must “specifically identify[ ] the material that it is challenging and . . . establish, at least prima facia, that such material was improperly designated.” (Id. at 5). … Indeed, it contemplates the possibility of sanctions for a party that makes “[d]esignations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose . . . .”