Case law

BLYSTONE v. OWEN-ILLINOIS, INC.

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

Blystone’s belief, nor do they claim that he had any specialized knowledge that would qualify him to testify to the presence of asbestos in the caulk. … However, the “white” descriptor in the specifications clearly refers to the color of the caulk itself, not the packaging.

Reichard v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.

331 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2018

Palmer ultimately concluded that Reichard "would currently qualify for employment in other occupations." Id. at 443 . … [by] showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute").

Deyo v. Eck

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2023

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. … Four of these statutes clearly have no relationship to this case, and it is very much unclear if the fifth statute applies. The first statute, 11 Pa.

ALEXANDER v. SRGT. VINGALISS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2023

Alexander also clearly alleges that by “mistreatment,” he is referring to the use of excessive force against these inmates, including the “frequent unreasonable and/or excessive use of a restraint chair.” … App’x 103, 109 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding in the context of a claim for qualified immunity that “[t]he amended complaint specifically alleges that the supervisory defendants were aware of a 2008 jury finding that Nassan was

United States v. Reaves

811 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1993

This court further finds that enhancement for the special characteristic of possession of a firearm is warranted “if the weapon is present unless it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” … Such circumstances have not been established to exist in the Defendant’s case.

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEWELL

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

Like a motion for summary judgment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings “will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment … Although the insured clearly intended to light the matches, he did not intend to spark the fire; thus, coverage for the resulting property damage was not clearly precluded. Eisenman, 264 A.2d at 674.

McCready v. Unity Sober Living Homes, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2025

McCready “clearly pleads that he went to Valley Forge for substance abuse and in fact, in his deposition, admits that he was on probation for possession charges. Therefore, [Mr.] … Section 3602(h) defines qualifying impairments, not qualifying persons. Unity does not dispute that depression qualifies as a handicap under § 3602(h), DI 81-1 at 12-13, so we find that Mr.

ADAMS v. DELAWARE COUNTY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

Cnty. of Centre, PA, 242 F.3d 437, 457 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e find that Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act lack any indicia of Congress' intent to override the settled common law immunity of municipalities … Any second amended complaint must clearly describe the factual basis for Mr.

BROWN v. GARNETTE

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

Feb. 8, 2023) (“Here, Cunningham has sufficiently established the first two elements of his retaliation claim. … The Complaint clearly alleges that each Defendant encouraged Brown and refused to intervene in an active suicide attempt by a prisoner who had been placed in an observation cell for self-injurious behavior. (See Doc.

PUMBA v. LEHIGH COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2022

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. … Claims Against Deputy Warden Russell, Deputy McFadden, and Deputy Miller Although Pumba names Deputy Warden Russell, Deputy McFadden, and Deputy Miller as defendants in the complaint, he fails to clearly state the basis

WESLEY v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2023

He also seeks as injunctive relief to be “examined by a qualified eye doctor and not a nurse.” (d.) jurisdiction, or state the relief Mr. Wesley seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 & 10. Itis also unsigned, See Fed, R. … Any amended complaint should clearly describe the factual basis for Mr.

PRICE v. COMMONWEALTH CHARTER ACADEMY - CYBER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2020

On March 3, 2019, Plaintiff e-mailed Fusion that “[it] will delay [T.R.’s] start date to allow time for Fusion to get CCA’s financial obligation clearly stated in writing[.]” Compl. Ex. at p. 179 (ECF 2-1). … This information was clearly necessary for CCA to determine whether Fusion was a qualified provider eligible to utilize T.R.’s CEA.

Perelman v. Perelman

919 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2013

“If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.” 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1487 (4th ed. 2010). B. … Neither does he contest the documents that establish the factual basis for GRC’s argument.

Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P.

185 F. Supp. 3d 612 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2016

Because it appears that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has foreclosed such a claim, the Court clearly erred in allowing Plaintiffs UTPCPL claim to proceed. … While Home moved for reconsideration and the Court granted its motion, that ruling was based solely on the Court’s legal error in finding that attorneys’ fees could .qualify as ascertainable *623 loss under the UTCPL.

STEIN v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2024

Turning first to the disparate treatment claim, while it is undisputed that each of the Plaintiffs is over the age of 40 and each was clearly qualified for the positions which they held for over twenty-five years,6 the … remaining prima facie elements have not been established.

Arch v. American Tobacco Co.

175 F.R.D. 469 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 1997

Hedging on this statement, however, the Georgine court qualified this standard of commonality by stating that it was not holding that “this class fails the commonality requirement because the test of commonality is subsumed … The “degree of injury” which each and every class member suffered would clearly be relevant to the computation of damages and would necessarily entail an individual inquiry.

United States v. Werdene

188 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2016

The court in Farrell held that “[u]nder these circumstances Tor users clearly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses while using the Tor network.” … The court stated: Whereas Scott effectively required the government to qualify for an exception to the general rule of suppression, the Supreme Court has since emphasized that the decision to exclude evidence is divorced

VASCULAR ACCESS CENTERS, L.P. v. PHILADELPHIA VASCULAR INSTITUTE, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 2025

The Bankruptcy Court clearly concluded that the decisions around Appellants’ sanctionable conduct were McGuckin’s own. … Therefore, the court must “establish a causal link—between the litigant’s misbehavior and legal fees paid by the opposing party.” Id.

BROWN v. LADDERMORE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2025

See May 18, 2015 Order, No. 15-2217, ECF No. 4 (dismissing claims based on the defendants’ alleged failure to investigate and prosecute and on absolute witness immunity grounds). … Vague, general, or conclusory allegations are likewise insufficient to establish that a plaintiff is in imminent danger. Id.

KEUCH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

The Qualified Retirement Policy was also adjusted. Pl. Ex. 24 at KEUCH000089. 199. … Because it was an IRS qualified plan, any exceptions to the plan needed to be clearly defined by rule. Id. at 149:5-12. 214. Mr.