Case law

Mitchell v. MG INDUSTRIES, INC.

822 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2011

To prove a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, Plaintiffs must establish they were: (1) over forty years of age; (2) qualified for the position at issue; (3) subject to an adverse employment action; and … Harman clearly set forth his reasoning why sales representatives were not his focus, explaining they could not contribute to profitability in any meaningful way given the fact their customers were locked into long-term, fixed

T.L. ex rel. Latisha G. v. Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School

224 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2016

While 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f) only requires a single resolution meeting, § 1415(e) clearly contemplates multiple mediation sessions. … Plaintiffs have therefore established the protected activity element of their retaliation claim. 2.

Schalliol v. Fare

206 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2002

According to Gould, after establishing a true conflict the court must next “select the choice of law rules of the state where the ‘acts or omissions’ occurred, not where the injury occurred.” Gould, 220 F.3d at 181 . … Here, the last act or omission having a causal effect clearly was committed by the air traffic controllers in Indiana.

Johnson v. Metlife Bank, N.A.

883 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2012

.; or (B) showing that the materials [that the moving party has cited] do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute.... ” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). … MetLife further argues that the documents Plaintiff signed, the two Notices and the deed transferring his property to Mother, all clearly explained that Plaintiff would be giving up his share of the residence and that he

MURRAY

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

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . .” Id. at 327. … Because DHS is immune from liability under § 1983, this claim will be dismissed. B.

Byrne v. Cleveland Clinic

684 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2010

Byrne does not specifically allege that Chester County Hospital qualifies as a participating hospital governed by EMTALA. … Under Pennsylvania law, " '[a] cause of action for breach of contract must be established by pleading (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3)

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Stedman

895 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1995

Judgment pursuant to Rule 12(c) will only be *746 granted if it is clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jablonski v. … Should the checks in fact also bear forged maker’s signatures, then a depositary or collecting bank is immunized from liability for having honored such checks unless the depositary or collecting bank failed to meet the requirements

McDevitt v. Harris

498 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 1980

To qualify for benefits conferred under 42 U.S.C. § 402 (a), an accumulation of twenty-six “quarters of coverage,” in the form of wages or self-employment income, must be demonstrated by the applicant. 42 U.S.C. § 414 (a) … The social security claimant in McDowell sought to establish that fees received as executor of the estate of a close relative constituted income derived from a “trade or business.”

HAMLITON v. NORRISTOWN STATE HOSPITAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2024

Under that structure, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, which requires showing: (1) that she was a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for her position … Poor performance if clearly set forth by the Defendant through the introduction of admissible evidence may serve as a legitimate reason for a failure to promote. Narin v. Lower Merion Sch.

Horizon House Developmental Services, Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton

804 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1992

Testimony of Fenster. 67.- Horizon House is in good standing with the Bucks County Office of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and is considered a prime qualified supplier of group home services. … The language of the ordinance clearly refers to people with handicaps. It extends to “any facility” where “permanent care or professional supervision is present.”

MOLLICHELLA v. WEST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

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

To qualify for the Section 207(k) exemption, the employer must demonstrate that (1) the employees at issue are engaged in fire protection or law enforcement, and (2) the employer established a qualifying work period. … Second, Plaintiff admits that Defendant Township established a 14-day work period (see SAC Ex.

YOAST v. POTTSTOWN BOROUGH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

reported “no acute distress” related to sleep apnea and reported no symptoms while sleeping.30 Plaintiff disputes this record of his conversation with NP Kline, and avers that he clearly … scienter can be proven through circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.”74 Here, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that policies or procedures, rather than the medical decisions of qualified

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

494 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 1980

MELCO further argues that, even if Alcoa is the law in some respects, the “intent plus effect” test announced there by Judge Learned Hand, see infra at 1182-1184, dubbed the “qualified” test by MELCO, applies only when (1 … This power clearly entails the extension of judicial jurisdiction where legislative jurisdiction does not exist.

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation

203 F.R.D. 197 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2001

Defendants do not challenge the qualifications of plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court finds them to be well qualified. … Clearly, purchasers of corrugated products under contracts which did not key prices to the price of linerboard must be excluded from the class.

Fresh Start Industries, Inc. v. ATX Telecommunications Services

295 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2003

Unitronix Corp., 218 N.J.Super. 260 , 527 A.2d 875, 882 (1986) (finding that corporations were intended to qualify as “consumers” under the Act). … This interest would clearly be impaired if the Pennsylvania statute was applied in this case since, as a corporation, the plaintiff could not state a cause of action under the UTPCPL.

United States ex rel. Bowers v. Rundle

253 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1965

The state courts do not consider the fact that in a case such as this a motion to suppress has been made at the preliminary hearing significant enough to make an exception to the well-established rule stated in the above-cited … Supreme Court dealing squarely with the issue of the application of Mapp to post-Mapp proceedings challenged on collateral at■tack where the applicability of Mapp was not raised at trial. 3 There is no Third Circuit case clearly

ALSTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Alston has not submitted facts that tend to establish that Lt. Dougherty had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment. He knew about Sgt. Gorman’s epithet because Sgt. Alston told him about it. … Dougherty had qualified immunity. An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joshua D.

Pearl Musical Instrument Company Co. Ltd. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd. et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2026

The visual elements here are clearly stated. Cf Classic Touch Décor, Inc. v. Michael Aram, Inc., No. 15-CV-453 (NGG) (RLM), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144636 at *12 (E.D.N.Y. … The Court disagrees, however, with Plaintiff's presumption that copying alone is sufficient, instead viewing it as one of many factors that may establish secondary meaning.

ESTATE OF PEREZ v. City of Philadelphia

701 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2010

Kneipp, like Ye, required something more than a “mere assurance” to establish an affirmative act. ii. … Reliance on a 911 operator, by itself, cannot establish a constitutionally recognized harm because plaintiffs had no constitutionally-recognized reliance interest in the first place: the Third Circuit has clearly stated that

Smith v. HireRight Solutions, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 2d 426 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2010

The United States Supreme Court has clarified that reckless disregard of FCRA requirements also qualifies as willful violation within the meaning of section 1681n(a) 4 . Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. … Second, quite unlike Safeco, where the statute at issue was “less-than-pellucid” and there was a “dearth of guidance,” id. at 70, the statutory text at issue here has a plain and clearly ascertainable meaning.