Case law

AMODU

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

Amodu’s acknowledgment that it followed its clearly established policies respecting the sexual harassment claims. Id. at 16. And Oxford argues that Mr. … To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he sought to retain or attain; (3) he suffered an adverse employment

United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.

196 F. Supp. 3d 477 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 10, 2016

When patients do not qualify for inpatient status at the first level of review, hospitals often rely on a “physician advisor” to conduct a second level review. Id. at ¶ 74 . … Relator alleges that "EHR’s inpatient certifications were clearly a substantial factor in the false inpatient claims” submitted by a Mississippi hospital because "every time EHR changed a patient’s status from outpatient

NELSON v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2020

of limitations defense cannot be used in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, an exception is made where the complaint facially shows noncompliance with the limitations period and the affirmative defense clearly … However, he must also allege facts that “establish some causal nexus between his membership in a protected class” and the adverse employment action that he complains about. Sarullo v. U.S.

COLLINS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2020

“‘Policy is made when a decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.’” Estate of Roman v. … App’x 130, 133 (6th Cir. 2018) (rejecting qualified immunity where the defendant “was driving above the speed limit, swerving, and generally driving recklessly” and when the inmates begged him to slow down,

Bull v. American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa.

641 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1986

. § 78i(e) (1983), the court of appeals for the third circuit held that “[application of a tolling theory based on discovery of the wrong clearly would do violence to a statute containing its own limited discovery rule.” … Before changes in the rights of a security holder can qualify as the “purchase” of a new security under § 10(b), there must be such a significant change in the nature of the investment or in the investment risks as to amount

R.B. Ex Rel. Parent v. Mastery Charter School

762 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2010

She is now nineteen years old, and will only qualify for special education services until age twenty-one. B. … Even if Mastery were able to transfer its responsibility for R.B.’s education to the District, these precautions are clearly insufficient to notify the School District that it was now responsible for R.B.’s education — particularly

Clinton Hudson & Sons v. Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farms, Inc.

73 F.R.D. 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1977

Clearly then, only if Mr. Hudson could claim that Lehigh Valley was under a contractual duty to buy his shares could he qualify as a seller. But this has simply not been alleged. … It is well-established that where the alleged wrong is primarily against the corporation, redress for that wrong must be sought by the corporation in the form of a derivative action.

LASALLE v. ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2025

To qualify as an injury in fact, the injury must be (a) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, and (b) concrete and particularized. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560); Adam v. … Plaintiff clearly alleges misuse that precipitated from the breach – namely, the noteworthy surge in spam communications and the attempted bank fraud.4 Plaintiff’s allegations of misuse are actual injuries that support

AHMED v. WEST COAST SERVICING INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

Ahmed do not qualify as attempts to collect a debt, and Mr. … Ahmed establishes a connection between the payoff figure and his inability to stop the sheriff’s sale.

Nace v. Pennridge School District

185 F. Supp. 3d 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2016

Rather, IIED liability is reserved “for only the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct.” Id. … The fact that contact occurs without consent is sufficient to establish that it is “offensive,” and “[n]o intent to harm the [plaintiff] need be established.” Cooper ex rel. Cooper v.

THOMAS v. SOLERA SENIOR LIVING, LLC

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

. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the Court to screen and dismiss the Complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[P]rotesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct . . .

Katz v. Commanding Officer

388 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 1975

Certain well established principles of law must be kept in mind in evaluating the exhibits in the record upon which the adverse determination was made. … The March 25, 1973 letter of petitioner’s father, Sidney Katz, M.D., clearly shows that the position of the petitioner, Dr. Katz, was not the direct result of active duty orders.

FLINT DILLE v. GEER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2020

To properly plead a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff Beneficiaries must establish that a fiduciary relationship exists between themselves and Geer. See Baker, 440 F. … Plaintiff Beneficiaries clearly plead their claim for breach of fiduciary duty in the alternative, to the extent it is inconsistent with any other allegations therein.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hay Associates

545 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 1982

The subjective nature of the promotion process was only enhanced by the lack of clearly articulated criteria for each consultant classification. C. … She has shown both that she was qualified for these promotions and that Campbell and others at Hay were aware of her desire for promotion.

Gallant v. Trustees of Columbia University in New York

111 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2000

In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide whether the Third Circuit would generally interpret section 1406(a) expansively, as it has clearly held that where venue is proper but the court lacks jurisdiction; a plaintiff … In context, that assertion implies, at the most, that the doctor actively advocated a specific type of medical treatment for William that he represented he and his colleagues were eminently qualified to provide.

In re DVI Inc. Securities Litigation

249 F.R.D. 196 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2008

However, Lead Plaintiffs seek to avoid establishing reliance for each individual member by invoking one of two presumptions established by the Supreme Court. … A class action is clearly the preferable means of adjudication to promote the efficient use of limited judicial resources.

DOUGLAS v. KENSINGTON COMMUNITY CORPORATION FOR INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Defendant was clearly on notice of her father’s disability. … The Third Circuit has clearly stated that “for an interference claim to be viable, the plaintiff must show that FMLA benefits were actually withheld.” Ross v.

Factory Market, Inc. v. Schuller International Inc.

987 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1998

USR’s original proposal to Budd clearly stated that the ten-year Guarantee was transferable, at no extra charge. … This clearly is a case of failed commercial expectations. Thus, FMI’s recovery is in contract, not tort.

Assembly Technology Inc. v. Samsung Techwin Co.

695 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 23, 2010

The business competitor’s privilege is a qualified privilege for a business to interfere with a competitor’s business relationships. See, e.g., Phillips v. … Therefore, even if it was sufficient before Twombly merely to characterize the defendant’s actions as wrongful, such is clearly insufficient presently. 8 .

HONKALA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2022

As a rule, judges are not appropriate parties for suit simply on the 13 The Federal Judicial District also alleges that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, as well as immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act … Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) (reasoning that [t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.