Case law

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

SHERMOT v. BUCCI

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

Pa. 2011) (“Court appointed counsel, especially one serving as a guardian ad litem, does not qualify as a state actor for purposes of § 1983.”). … alleged that the parties are diverse for purposes of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction over any state law claims she intends to pursue. IV.

GARZA v. WELLPATH MEDICAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2021

“Congress did not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity via § 1983” and Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity in federal court. Id. at 310; see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521–22. … that he must clearly state the factual allegations that support a claim for relief against each defendant.

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.”

MCCOWAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2021

” • “What special training do you have that qualified you to work in HIDTA?” • “If there had not been a second party (Ms. … (See id. at ¶ 220 (stating that Ross was “mad” because he believed McCowan was “making all this up”).) 19 We do not address Ross’ conclusory assertions of qualified immunity in this opinion.

Pyle v. Meritor Savings Bank

821 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1993

Thus, the plaintiff has established the first two conditions of the removal exception. 2. 12 U.S.C. § 1819 (b)(2)(D)(Hi) The last condition which the plaintiff must establish is in subsection (iii). … The FDIC also argues that federal law establishes a defense to punitive damages.

Foley v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 98 Pension Fund

91 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2000

In order to establish whether plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits in a timely fashion, I must first decide when the denial of benefits took place. … Clearly, this refers to the December 12, 1996 letter. 5 .

TURNER v. ABINGTON/JEFFERSON HOSPITAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2021

the Court must review Turner’s complaint and dismiss her lawsuit if the action is frivolous or malicious; the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or the action seeks money damages from an immune … But, for the reasons discussed above, the Court cannot conclude that Turner has shown that she was qualified when her position remains unknown to the Court.

Paskel v. Heckler

563 F. Supp. 1095 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1983

Recipients in the diary system are periodically required to either submit additional medical information or undergo a medical re-examination according to an established schedule which was set up for that individual according … By promulgating this regulation the Secretary clearly has entered into the legislative realm and beyond the’limit of administrative need.

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.

Cabibbo v. Einstein/Noah Bagel Partners, L.P.

181 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2002

(1) “Other paper” As to the second of these two inquiries, there is no governing authority in this circuit establishing whether answers to interrogatories — or discovery materials in general — are “other paper” for the purposes … If by their content answers to interrogatories adequately set forth the basis of federal jurisdiction, and thereby put the defendant on notice that a suit is removable, they clearly serve the purpose for which the second

United States ex rel. Ryan v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

27 F. Supp. 3d 615 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2014

Sufficient facts to establish ‘a plausible ground for relief must be alleged.” Id. at 158 (citing Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir.2009)). … Ryan filed her initial Complaint on July 5, 2005, which clearly falls within the applicable statute of limitations. IY.

United States v. Blount

940 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1996

Defense counsel for Officer Torok argues that finding Officer Torok not qualified for a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and yet qualified for a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice amounts … Douglas Krause requested a transfer to pod 2C in December of 1992 because of its established reputation for drag availability.

Young v. Lukens Steel Co.

881 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 1994

Comparison of the two above quotes clearly indicates that this Court correctly instructed the jury on the third step of McDonnell Douglas. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following four elements: (1) that he belongs to a protected class, i.e., that he is at least forty years of age; (2) that he was qualified

Lopez v. ALROD ENTERPRISES, INC.

602 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 11, 2009

Plaintiffs Initial Burden To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment … Lopez's evidence would not establish a prima facie case under this standard. See Radue v.

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

319 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1970

Allegheny, in the instant suit, seeks a declaration that since it is an interstate carrier, it is immune, as a matter of federal law, from the exercise of control by the PUC. … The instant case is clearly one for the application of the doctrine of federal abstention.

CLARK v. ALBRIGHT COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2022

“A general complaint of unfair treatment is insufficient to establish protected activity.” Id. … The reasons we surmise from Clark’s pleading for his alleged harassment clearly do not qualify as the type of prohibited basis contemplated under the statutes.

BINGHAM v. CITY OF READING, PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2021

First, though he names the City of Reading as a Defendant, it is clearly the conduct of the Common Pleas Court located in Reading at issue in his Complaint. … Additionally, it has been well established for over 150 years that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases concerning divorce, alimony, or child custody cases. Ankenbrandt v.

Danao v. ABM Janitorial Services

142 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2015

Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir.2001) (requiring § 1981 claimants to establish “intent to discriminate on the basis of race”). … Plaintiff, in this case, clearly does so.

The Monte Iciar

67 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1946

The witness knew the facts, and he was qualified to answer the question as to ownership * * * “It might be argued from the bill of lading, that the Lulcens Steel Company was presumptively the owner of the cargo inasmuch as … Benziger’s testimony stands uncontradicted, and I think it clearly establishes that libellant acquired title to the wine by purchase prior to its shipment from Spain.