Case law

TYSH v. RAZOR TECHNOLOGY, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2025

Mar. 15, 2022) (finding that declarations attached to a motion to dismiss “clearly may not be considered” at the pleadings stage (quoting Schmidt v. … The PHRA is generally interpreted in accord with its federal counterparts, see Kelly, 94 F.3d at 105, which reflect the “well-established presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes.”

NIMOITYN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2022

to establish a fraudulent conveyance. AAB at 11, 12, 28; Order at 8 ¶ 8. … This judgment is not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. See In re Ferguson, 376 B.R. 109, 121 (Bankr. E.D.

MORLEY v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2021

Burrough’s qualified immunity. IV. … Plaintiff erroneously relies on Bivens to assert an implied right of action against federal agents, as his claims are clearly distinguishable from Bivens, Davis, and Carlson and would require an expansion of the remedy

WILLIAMS v. DFH REALTY LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2021

State or 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 … 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.

SCHAFFER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2026

The ADA prohibits employers from “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship … Citing published opinions of other courts of appeal, the Third Circuit has accepted that a plaintiff employee establishes a prima facie case of associational disability if: (1) the plaintiff was “qualified”

United States v. Estate of Young

592 F. Supp. 1478 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1984

[must be] established.” United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. at 84 , 74 S.Ct. at 369 . … As amended, § 2040(a) clearly does not apply to property in which the decedent had an interest as tenant in common. 21 .

EASTMOND v. GALKIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2024

Eastmond does not establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation and thus her claim fails as a matter of law. It is undisputed that she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave. … Moreover, the deposition testimony Plaintiff cites to as direct evidence, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, clearly states that Dr.

Zemaitatis v. Innovasive Devices, Inc.

90 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2000

Plaintiffs expert witness In order to establish defectiveness of the suture anchor and causation, plaintiff offered the expert testimony of Dr. Steven Batterman. The court held two hearings in accordance with Daubert v. … In reviewing a jury’s award of damages, a court must ensure that the verdict is clearly supported by the evidence, and that it is not excessive as a matter of law. See Starceski v.

Wolk Law Firm v. United States

371 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2019

As to whether the cell phone video at issue qualifies as a CVR recording, the NTSB argues that it interprets the statute to include "videos of the interior of the cockpit taken with a cell phone." Id. … Indeed, Congress "clearly intended the FOIA to give any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest in a particular document." Id. (quoting NLRB v.

JACQUALINE N. v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2020

The ADA provides in relevant part: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be … Clearly, the plaintiff parents and plaintiff providers have properly averred they are injured parties and thus have standing to sue the defendants.3 3.

AYALA, SR. v. LOCAL 6 BAKERY CONFECTIONERY AND TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2024

The rules warn clearly that the Court “will not consider material not included in the appendix.” … To establish a prima facie case, an ADA discrimination plaintiff must show that he: (1) has a disability; (2) is a qualified individual; and, (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.

Schnell v. Bank of New York Mellon

828 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2011

This application clearly lists her monthly household income as $4,842.93. Mot. Dismiss Ex. F. … Bank of America, therefore, does not qualify as a credit repair organization, and Schnell provides no facts or case law to indicate otherwise.

United States v. Cabiness

278 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2003

This contention, however, is in direct contradiction to established law. … and that, therefore, petitioner has failed to establish a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Lebow v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASAULTY COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

Owens is qualified to testify regarding judgments he makes in the essential responsibilities of his day-to-day job. Mr. … While Plaintiffs may not be permitted to enter evidence of previous bad faith claims to establish a trend of bad faith, the fact that nearby houses had hail damage from that same storm is clearly probative of whether Defendant

Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Germantown v. United States

50 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 1943

The evidence fails to establish that plaintiff retained the sum, of $51,101.39 representing the premiums earned during the year, or any part thereof, solely for the payment of losses, expenses and reinsurance reserves. … The evidence fails to establish that plaintiff conducted its operations during 1938 as a pure mutual company within the meaning of Section 101(11) of the Revenue Act of 1938. 3.

WILLIAMS v. HUNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025

As the Commonwealth has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for lawsuits filed in federal court, see 42 Pa. Cons. … . § 8521-22, it and its departments, as well as their officials sued in their official capacities, are immune from suits filed in federal court.

Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham

583 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2008

The FDA then issued a Public Health Advisory and corresponding Talk Paper, on October 27, 2003, stating that the “data do not clearly establish an association between the use of these drugs and increased suicidal thoughts … [Insert established name] is not approved for use in pediatric patients.

GARDNER v. SEPTA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2019

Even if Plaintiff could establish he was a qualified individual with a disability, he fails to demonstrate he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. … The Third Circuit maintains, “the plaintiff bears only the burden of identifying an accommodation, the cost of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.” Walton v.

Walkup v. Santander Bank, N.A.

147 F. Supp. 3d 349 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2015

(“Santander”) and PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) knew that Plaintiffs would not qualify for a loan modification, but nonetheless engaged in deceptive conduct to encourage default on the loan so that Plaintiffs could submit … Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs’ state law claims must fail because they are “thinly-veiled attempts to assert a private cause of action under HAMP” and are “clearly derivative of a HAMP claim, Defs.

WILSON v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2023

Wilson’s own deposition testimony establishes that he was not qualified for his position within the meaning of the ADA because he could not perform the essential functions of the job. See Garner v. … Wilson’s Title VII race discrimination claim cannot survive summary judgment for the very same reason that his ADA claim fails: he has not established that he was qualified for the job as of June 2020.