Case law

United States v. Tartaglione

228 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2017

The party asserting the marital communications privilege bears the burden of establishing all three elements. … To preclude evidence in a motion in limine, the evidence must be clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.

Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

135 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2001

It is plaintiffs burden to overcome this strong presumption by pointing to a clearly mandated public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See, e.g., Clark v. Modern Group Ltd., 9 F.3d 321 (3rd Cir.1993). … Regardless of whether or not Fraser can establish that Nationwide has recently implemented policy changes undermining his independence and altering his status as an independent contractor, the record establishes and Fraser

Dougherty v. Hidalgo

539 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1981

Midshipman Lamble tendered a qualified resignation which was accepted and she was not required to report for active duty with the Navy. … One of the signed statements should never have been given to the Secretary to review since the statement was clearly hearsay. The statement begins “None of my information is first hand.”

Groves v. Insurance Co. of North America

433 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 1977

From that time until May, 1973, Faust, although qualified, was offered no transfer or promotion by INA. … Such a situation might arise if, for example, the case patently failed to qualify for class action treatment under Rule 23.

MCCRAY v. DELAWARE COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2024

As Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, claims against the Delaware County Courts are barred. … It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish diversity of citizenship. See Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 72 (1939); Quaker State Dyeing & Finishing Co., Inc. v.

Brainy Ideas, Inc. v. Media Group

169 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2001

Haas was qualified as an expert in the fields of mechanical design and polymer engineering. See Hr’g Tr. (10/13/00) at 59. Defendants objected to the proffer of this opinion because Dr. … They argue that the court may not consider such extrinsic evidence because, in their view, the claims clearly establish that the term “securing mechanism’’ means "latching mechanism.”

BOYER-WHITE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2026

Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court when the state has not waived that immunity, id., and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity for claims … Guilty pleas generally do not qualify as terminations in favor of the accused. See Walker v. N. Wales Borough, 395 F. Supp. 2d 219, 232 (E.D.

Brown v. United States

365 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1973

It is true that the outcome of the mandamus class action may establish liability by res judicata in future back pay cases in the District Courts or in the Court of Claims. … If the relevant variable in the Supreme Court proves to be how clearly a given case concerns an issue of traditional jurisdiction, Greenwell will be held retroactive, for it involves more clearly what Blackstone would have

In Re Penn Central Securities Litigation

367 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1973

Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134 , 88 S.Ct. 1981 , 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968), Timken Roller Bearing, supra, Kiefer-Stewart, supra, make it clear that common ownership or control does not provide separately incorporated companies with immunity … Rather, they say, we should permit "qualified representatives" to intervene and "adopt" the class action allegations.

SHOFFNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2026

The timing of the allegedly retaliatory behavior relative to the constitutionally protected conduct may establish a causal link between the two for purposes of establishing motivation. … Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court when the state has not waived that immunity, id., and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity, see

Hobson v. St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network

735 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2010

Luke’s Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, campus. 8 Plaintiff was qualified for the position, and he always received good performance appraisals and regular salary increases. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he: (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations; and (3) was

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

312 F.R.D. 171 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2015

Predominance “[D]esigned for situations in which class-action treatment is not as clearly called for,” the “predominance” inquiry is a demanding one. Comcast Corp. v. … In other words, [to prove antitrust impact] a plaintiff must prove “three quite independent requirements: (1) that it suffered an injury; (2) that its injury was caused by an antitrust violation; and (3) that the injury qualifies

Momah v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

978 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1997

This evidence is insufficient to establish disparate treatment. … A prima facie case is established when a plaintiff has successfully shown (1) that he or she is a member of a protected class, and (2) is qualified for the position but (3) was either not hired or fired from that position

Alexy v. Kennedy House, Inc.

507 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1981

In addition to effectuating a national policy, the Kennedy House right of first refusal at a specified transfer value is clearly valid under state law. … The instant case is also clearly distinguishable from Lauderbaugh v.

KELLY v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PHDC)

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2022

In this case, PHDC’s proffered reason is that she was not qualified for promotion. … Even if Plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case, as discussed above, PHDC has clearly advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for her termination: lying on her application.

CHAMBERS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2020

First, Defendants argue they are protected by sovereign immunity from the Title VII claims. … But this is contrary to well-established Supreme Court precedent that sovereign immunity does not bar recovery in Title VII suits. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v.

ELLERBE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2022

Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has suggested that federal judges are immune to claims for injunctive relief. Martinez v. United States, 838 F. … Federal courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution “do not render advisory opinions.” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).

HUGHES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2023

The Defendant Officers, acting within the scope of their employment and under color of state law, agreed among themselves and with other individuals to act in concert to deprive Plaintiff of his clearly established . . … If probable cause is shown to exist, an absolute defense is established against an action for malicious prosecution and the prosecutor’s motive, malicious or otherwise, is immaterial. Turano v.

GODSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

A custom may be established by “evidence of knowledge and acquiescence.” Id. … Count XI, as it is predicated on a failure to train, is likewise dismissed with prejudice as the Third Circuit has clearly defined the pleading requirements to support a Monell claim. V.

Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc.

71 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 1999

of any state, territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Thus, when one considers that the functions which MSF was to serve on behalf of PennDot were specifically enumerated in the written contract, the pleading clearly fails to suggest that in making the decision to not offer