Case law

WALLS v. MILLER EDGE, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

It is undisputed that Plaintiff qualified as an eligible employee under the FMLA and was entitled to FMLA leave for the serious health condition of avascular necrosis. … Neither party disputes that Plaintiff invoked his right to FMLA leave for a qualified condition.

TYLER v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2025

He clearly hoped that the marijuana use was Penske’s only concern about him, based on his contingent offer and what the recruiter had told him. … The plaintiff may establish causation through “(1) an unusually suggestive temporal proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish

Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock

645 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2009

This question is clearly answered in the affirmative. … This particular section of the Lanham Act “protects qualifying unregistered trademarks, and the general principles to qualify a registered mark are largely applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark qualifies

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Central Penn National Bank

372 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 1974

of the claims, the main thrust of this trial has been to establish the order of priorities among Miller’s creditors. … Despite the conditional nature of Franklin’s lien, it suffices to qualify that claimant as a “lien creditor” as of February 7, 1966.

Dennis v. Wetzel

966 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2013

For these purposes, “clearly established federal law” means “the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. … The decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law, because it cited and applied the correct legal standard for Brady claims. . See supra, n. 25. .

De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Rasa Floors, LP

269 F.R.D. 445 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2010

Regarding the “adequacy of counsel” prong, while no clearly defined standard exists to determine whether class counsel is qualified to represent the putative class, the court is required to confirm that the proposed attorneys … Gossett, counsel for Viewpoint and Rasa, is a qualified and experienced trial attorney able to represent his two clients. Nevertheless, Mr.

SADATI v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2020

May 16, 2018) (PrimeCare did not dispute qualifying as a state actor for purposes of §1983 application). … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

Pocono Invitational Sports Camp, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

317 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2004

Thus, for the same reasons the Third Circuit found eligibility rules immune from antitrust scrutiny, I find that these recruiting rules are also immune. 16 Plaintiffs’ argument that the rules are commercial because they impose … “Where the plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed relevant market that clearly does not encompass

Environmental Equipment & Service Co. v. Wachovia Bank

741 F. Supp. 2d 705 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2010

Wachovia clearly complied with § 4406(a) as is evident from the copies of the EES and CAP Account statements provided by the parties. … Furthermore, EES fails to identify which statements it did not receive and does not quantify what percentage qualifies as a “vast majority.”

City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A., Corp.

126 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2000

The statute clearly refers to nuisance actions because it mentions “abatement.” … At the time of the suit, sovereign immunity had been abolished by the courts, and the legislature had not yet reenacted sovereign immunity by statute. See id.

TALBERT v. SHAPIRO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2023

Talbert cannot sue the Governor in his official capacity for damages given the Commonwealth’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. And Mr. … Talbert claims his treatment is “clearly irrational” but he “cannot use conclusory, boilerplate language to show that he may be entitled to relief[.]”95 We dismiss Mr.

Di Santo v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp.

489 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 1980

of the policy declarations provides as follows: Pilots-The coverage afforded by this policy shall not apply unless the aircraft is operated in flight by the pilots endorsed hereon and then only provided said pilots are qualified … The June telexes clearly were not intended to state all the terms of the insurance contract, a document which in its final form is ten pages long.

Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co.

183 F.R.D. 189 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1998

Adequate representation depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiffs attorney must be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic … Clearly, joinder of all would be impracticable and duplicative individual trials would impose inordinate burdens on the litigants and the court. Moskowitz, 128 F.R.D. at 636 citing Green v.

Thomas v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

297 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2003

Although the Third Circuit has established the “heightened arbitrary and capricious” standard, and has provided some guidance as to when it should be applied, the court has yet to establish a clear method for determining … Defendants correctly state, “ERISA does not incorporate every aspect of the Internal Revenue Code relating to qualified benefit plans, like the SmithKline pension plans.” Def. Br. Ill 4.

Goldlawr, Incorporated v. Shubert

169 F. Supp. 677 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 1958

The foregoing facts which appear in defendants’ affidavits indicate clearly that in accounting procedures, at least, corporate separateness was carefully observed. … The unimpeached affidavits of these fiduciary defendants establish that they have not been designated or qualified as fiduciaries in any state other than New York; that they have not consented to suit in any other state;

STEVENS v. PHILLY LIV BACON LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2025

Mondelez Glob., LLC, 847 F.3d 144, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2017)). 13 “Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual … . § 2611 (describing who qualifies as an “eligible employee” under the FMLA).

Ashwood Manor Civic Ass'n v. Dole

619 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1985

Any corridor that was one of the two least disruptive in any of those categories qualified as a candidate corridor. … Such a change would grossly disrupt established patterns.

KUNJI HARRISBURG LLC v. AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2020

The May 14, 2018 Claim Plaintiff also claims that Defendant’s denial of the May 14, 2018 claim was in bad faith, because Defendant’s investigation clearly established that the … Additionally, the record does not conclusively establish whether Defendant is now in a substantially less favorable position.

CAMMARANO V. WEAVER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

Defendant Adams argues that he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity from the bulk of Cammarano’s claims against him. (See ECF No. 12-1 at 4-5 (citing, inter alia, Imbler v. … App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff’s conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff’s behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. STRONG CONTRACTORS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2020

Treesdale, Inc., the 1 CFSIC also argues that Tyler’s request to intervene under Rule 24 was “clearly not timely made.” CFSIC Resp. at 15. … An absent party with merely a “contingent financial interest in a declaratory judgment action to establish insurance coverage” cannot “accurately claim that there are common questions of law or fact between the coverage