Case law

WHITE v. GONZALES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 23, 2022

My 8th and 14 Amendment were clearly established at the time the violations occurred. Lehigh County Jail is operated in an unconstitutional manner.” (Id. at 13-14 (parenthetical in original).) … any 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

United States ex rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG

991 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2014

547 dor on a qualified vendors list does not necessarily result in government sales, but only entitles that vendor to compete with other qualified vendors for sales at the subsequently requested configurations and volume. … In the two sentences preceding her reference to “novated,” Sweitzer clearly states that two separate ultrasound contracts still existed.

MANN v. DELBALSO

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

“A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id. … Moreover, the Third Circuit’s decision in Travillion did not change the clearly established Supreme Court law set forth in Jackson governing sufficiency of the evidence claims.

BERKERY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2021

Plaintiffs who initiate an action in federal court, such as Berkery, bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Chain, 2018 WL 5631642, at *3. IV. … Weidner, 729 F.3d 280, 296 (3d Cir. 2013) (“It is well established that, under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages may be awarded in cases of common law fraud.”); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8371.

In Re Sunrise Securities Litigation

793 F. Supp. 1306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1992

Florida law recognizes the right of a third party beneficiary to sue under a contract, but “that right is limited to those situations where the provisions of the contract clearly show an intention primarily and directly to … GMAC does not claim, much less has it established, that GM’s control is such that GMAC is but an instrumentality of the parent GM....

University Medical Center v. Sullivan

122 B.R. 919 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1990

On review, the court accepts the factual findings of the bankruptcy court unless the findings are clearly erroneous. … It simply establishes a relationship between the parties: if UMC treats eligible patients, HHS will reimburse them for their costs.

WHITE v. GONZALES

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

Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to rebut by making a factual showing “sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear … Gonzales SJ Memo and Order.docx 3 Given this dispositive holding, this Court declines to address Defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation

229 F.R.D. 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2005

Dec. 1, 2004) (concluding that “substantial ... email communications” with a corporation located in the forum may qualify as sufficient evidence of minimum contacts for the exercise of personal jurisdiction). … This is clearly incorrect. Resorting to the Hague Convention is not even an option because Belgium is not a signatory to the treaty.

HALL v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2019

immunity, and the section 1983 official capacity claims against Wiberg. … But Krull’s testimony established no such fact.

BIONDINO v. BUCKS COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOL AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 20, 2024

custom, or usage, of any State . . . 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 … The risk of injury—indeed, the risk that a student would get injured in precisely the way that Biondino did— was clearly substantial. Id. (citation omitted).

SMITH v. RB DISTRIBUTION, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 2020

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she sought to retain; (3) she suffered an adverse … Smith has claimed that she filed three complaints regarding Rosario’s conduct with Human Resources, which if true, would clearly qualify as protected activity.

NOLAN v. TALENTBURST, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

Plaintiff clearly alleges that “Defendant TalentBurst was Plaintiff’s direct employer” and that her “contract” was with TalentBurst. (ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ 27.) … TalentBurst only disputes whether Plaintiff has established the third element.

RIVERA v. SCINICO

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

Recognizing the docketing error, and that Rivera’s letter qualified as a timely post-decision motion of the type specified by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third … The Younger requirements are clearly met in this case. First, the criminal proceeding against Rivera is still pending.

M. v. UPPER DARBY SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2023

To establish a Section 504 claim, a plaintiff must satisfy a three-part test: the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the child has a disability; (2) was otherwise qualified to participate in a school program, and (3) was denied … As noted above, the first and second prongs of the test are clearly met.

DONAHUE v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGDALE

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

Deposition testimony established that officers frequently 11 When, as here, video evidence clearly captures many of the events, the Court may take them as true. Scott v. … Defendants argue that officer Defendants are entitled to official immunity for the state claims. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8550.

ECHOLS v. PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2021

In cases where the debt can fluctuate, the Seventh Circuit has endorsed the “safe harbor” language established in Miller v. … Riexinger & Assoc., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that the Miller language qualifies as a safe harbor). Such an approach seems to comport with the requirements of the FDCPA.

Jennings v. ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2023

To state a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII or the PHRA, a “plaintiff must allege that: (1) [she] is a member of a protected class; (2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] held; (3) … Luke’s vaccine policy and therefore would have qualified for the premium discount.

SKF USA Inc. v. Okkerse

992 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2014

As we have explained in a different but instructive context whatever inconvenience the parties would suffer by being forced to litigate in the contractual forum as they agreed to do was clearly foreseeable at the time of … Such information qualifies as protected trade secrets where the degree of secrecy is “such that it would be difficult for others to obtain the information without using improper means.” Nat. Risk Mgmt., Inc. v.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital

555 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 1983

As heretofore noted, that Order also established and appointed the Hearing Master. … Despite the apparent advantages of the use of ICF/MR qualified facilities for the *1161 community habilitation of Pennhurst residents, the Commonwealth defendants have been slow to adopt and implement this program.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gambone

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

Per our policy, Non-Owned Cars and Newly A[c]quired Cars cannot be owned by our policyholder or their spouse in order to qualify for coverage. … The State Farm policy clearly and unambiguously precludes liability coverage for the Cadillac.