Case law

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.

POUSSAINT v. MENDLOVITZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2024

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. … 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.

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).

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.

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

Lawrence v. United States of America Interstate Commerce Commission

629 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1986

These policies are so strong that they admit only three exceptions: “(1) when the nonjudicial remedy is clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable injury; (2) when resort to the nonjudicial remedy would ‘clearly … The CSC and its successor, the MSPB, are specially qualified to regulate the federal competitive service. See 5 U.S.C. § 1302 (1967).

Garczynski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

656 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2009

(“Clearly there is uncertainty within the Circuit as to what type of conduct the ‘catch all’ provision of the UTPCPL protects.”). … Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to establish a FCEUA claim. In Hartman v. Deutsche Bank Natl.

Charter Oak Insurance v. Maglio Fresh Food

979 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2013

qualify for coverage . . . .”_ Oct. 6, 2010 Leonetti’s amended its Complaint. … Furthermore, Maglio ignores that Charter Oak clearly continued to reserve its rights to contest coverage in those same letters.

Sendall v. Boeing Helicopters

827 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1993

employees may qualify as continuing violations), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1042 , 104 S.Ct. 708 , 79 L.Ed.2d 172 (1984); Winters v. … Having the benefit in the present action of review of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), it clearly appears that Boeing's annual

Hoersch v. Froehlke

382 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 1974

Ed.2d 467 (1972). 23 The burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of 10 U.S.C. 269(b) is upon the party attacking it, namely Hoersch. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. v. … The Armed Forces , Reserve Act of 1952 [Pub.L. 476, July 9, 1952, 66 Stat. 481 ] was enacted “for the purpose of providing trained units and qualified individuals to be available for active duty in the Armed Forces of the

In re Hawley Down Draft Furnace Co.

256 F. 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1919

^The more broadly the substantial facts are stated, the more clearly are these points presented. … The company was established in Chicago. It was proposed to_ bring their entire plant to Faston.

Marburger v. Upper Hanover Township

225 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2002

It would be absurd to allow Title VII suits against individuals in their official capacities when the organizations they represent are clearly not covered by the statute. … This fact helped establish that the plaintiff was not on the Mayor’s personal staff, and,the plaintiff was found to be an “employee” under Title VII.

ERRINGTON v. City of Reading d/b/a Reading Police Department

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2025

App’x 137, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[Plaintiff’s] § 1983 claim fails and we need not consider the issue of qualified immunity.” … Since Errington fails to plausibly present a federal question, this Court also does not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

SWINT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2026

Step one is slightly different: to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must establish that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she sought to attain or retain; (3) she … DI 85 at 3; DI 86 at 6 (acknowledging, and not clearly disputing, Ms.

Mehling v. New York Life Insurance

163 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2001

Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants concealed or misrepresented the investment of assets in the MainStay Funds when such information was clearly ascertainable through the Plans’ Form 5500s and the Fund … Three circuit courts have addressed the issue of whether a parent corporation qualifies as a “person associated with a member” under the NASD Code, and all have concluded that the term “person” covers only natural persons

United States v. DiPasquale

561 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 1983

Clearly there was no error in the jury’s having considered this evidence for a limited purpose and only as to James DiPasquale. … Does he have immunity, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Well, if he doesn’t have immunity why isn’t he arrested for the crime? And you know why, because the agreement if very simple: “Say what we want to hear.”

LITTLE v. PENUEL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2021

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). … It follows that he cannot establish that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his claims. Moreover, with respect to the threat of irreparable harm, Little has clearly not carried the burden of persuasion.

United States v. Bily

406 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 1975

While the statements in paragraphs four to eight are probative of infringement, they fall short of establishing a probability of it. … The defendant clearly has failed to carry his burden of proving selective prosecution, which is the sole ground for his motion. United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973). United States v.