Case law

GRAHAM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2026

Graham does not indicate clearly what she means by alleging that the mortgage was “assigned” to Ocwen Loan Servicing. … Riddle, 911 F.3d 799, 805 (5th Cir. 2018) (“When Congress chose to impose RESPA duties more broadly, it did so clearly and explicitly . . . . [§ 2607] states that ‘no person’ shall engage in the forbidden conduct.

LINS v. PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2023

The court must instead run an inquiry into whether the forms qualify as permissible waivers of Lins’ constitutional rights. … To any extent that this qualifies as a response on Lins’ part, the court would still have to find for the defendants.

AMERICAN NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALEXIS

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

In the alternative, ANLIC states that if Defendants argue they were not the owners of the site at the time of Rosa’s accident, then Defendants would not qualify as Additional Named Insureds under the Policy, and therefore … Defendants argue the Exclusion does not apply because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit complaint do not clearly and unambiguously show that Ernesto Rosa was an employee, temporary worker or leased worker

PENA v. CITY OF LANCASTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2025

Muñoz was a qualified individual; (2) who had a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, the services, programs, or activities of a public entity—or was otherwise subjected to … Clearly, whether Ms.

EDMONDS v. CAPOZZA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2022

; (2) “Did the state courts violate clearly established federal law where they denied [Petitioner’s] Batson challenge by striking the only African American juror of entire jury panel?” … Judge Reid concluded the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s reliance on Craver is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.37 Mr.

SWIDERSKI v. HARMON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2020

to qualified immunity; and (5) there is no evidence to support Mr. … Swiderski cannot not establish a substantial risk of harm as required by the first element; he cannot establish deliberate indifference by Prison Officials required by the second element; and he cannot establish mold caused

Gilbert v. Feld

842 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1993

Civil Rights Violations under § 1983 (Justice) To support his claim against Justice for a civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 , Gilbert must prove: (1) that he was deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured … Gilbert has clearly met this requirement.

Eppley v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

789 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2011

Eppley’s treating physician/surgeon, who clearly stated there would be no ‘standing or walking for work.’” (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. 6.) … to [the administrator's] satisfaction before a claimant can continue to receive, or even qualify for, disability benefits....

Hussey v. Chase Manhattan Bank

418 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2005

This statement, however, cannot qualify as a breach of fiduciary duty for two reasons. First, Plaintiff cannot establish that any Defendant acting as a fiduciary made the purported misrepresentation to Plaintiff. … Accordingly, we conclude that the alleged statement made to Plaintiff does not qualify as a misrepresentation. C.

WALKER v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2022

Mirabile does not attest to any credentials, expertise, or experience that would qualify him to render any opinions as to the import of these markers. The proper means to establish Mr. … The dwelling on the Insured Property is clearly not “immediately adjoining” to where the tree fell and caused damage.

BERNARD v. SORBER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2023

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federai law, as determined by the Supreme Court 3 While Mr. … Stackhouse, to identify him in court; (2) The trial court improperly admitted opinion testimony from a witness not qualified as an expert; 5 Mr, Bernard’s motion to amend his habeas petition is also timely.

United States v. Ezeiruaku

754 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 1990

Ezeiruaku maintains that only “routine” border searches qualify for exemption from the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and warrant requirements. … By stark contrast, there are no established procedures for out-going passengers.

WILLIAMS v. SESSIONS

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

Additionally, the Second Amendment clearly covers Plaintiff’s petition to possess a firearm contrary to the prohibitions of Section 922(g)(1). See id. … at 103 (finding that Range’s request to possess a rifle and shotgun to hunt and defend himself is clearly protected conduct).

HEYWARD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Heyward cites analyzed Detective Harkins and Officer Taggart’s argument they are entitled to qualified immunity. … We explained we could not find a Fourteenth Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of Mr.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

851 F. Supp. 2d 867 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2012

Y & H Corp., [federal] statutory threshold requirements should not be treated as jurisdictional unless Congress has clearly stated that they are.”). . … is not [with respect to the Attorney General’s enforcement of the law], the legislative intent of the act is clearly to 'suppress' all trust and monopolies.

United States v. Jones

557 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2008

Jones argues that credit cards with “fictitious” numbers or which are expired, non-encrypted cards, and those cards with missing security codes, do not qualify as access devices under the statute. … Section 1029(e) of Title 18 clearly states that an access device is one which can be used alone, or in conjunction with another access device. (Emphasis added).

CAREY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2026

sufficiently plead a section 1985(3) claim: “(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities … Carey alleges the Association qualifies as an unincorporated Pennsylvania association of unit owners and the Nonprofit Association Law defines the Association as a legal entity.

Baylson v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

764 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1991

The absence of a parallel provision regarding district court rulemaking under section 2071 is additional proof that Congress did not immunize local rules from judicial examination for procedural regularity- Turning to the … As 28 U.S.C. § 2074 (b) clearly prescribes, “Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.” See H.R.Rep.

McLaughlin v. Pernsley

654 F. Supp. 1567 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1987

It is an extraordinary and narrow exception to a district court’s *1578 duty to adjudicate a controversy properly before it, justified only in the exceptional circumstances where resort to state proceedings clearly serves … County of San Joaquin, 601 F.Supp. 653 (E.D.Calif.1985). 29 Whether this Court could grant the relief that plaintiffs seek, as a remedy to an established equal protection violation, is a different matter entirely.

ZARROW

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2026

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. … Dec. 1, 2022) (“Courts in the Third Circuit have repeatedly held that ‘constitutional claims brought against banks fail as a matter of law because banks and their employees do not qualify as state actors.’”)