Case law

CHOUINARD v. PERFECTION SNACKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2023

Defendants contend that under the circumstances, he does not qualify for coverage under the FLSA. … Chouinard is clearly exempted from the FLSA because he worked exclusively in Canada and because he was an outside sales employee.

SMITH v. HARRISON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 2022

Smith’s alleged delay in a hearing does not establish a state procedural bar. … Smith identifies Advocate Martino as simply “the Child Advocate.”63 “Unlike the roles of guardian ad litem and counsel for child, which are clearly delineated in the child custody law, the statute does not recognize the

THEIA TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. THEIA GROUP, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2020

As the Supreme Court has held, there is no “blanket immunity [for] trade practices which radiate unlawful consequences here, merely because they were initiated or consummated outside the territorial limits of the United … Tr. at 6 (These meetings are In their opposition to the preliminary injunction, Defendants admit their “products are not available to the general public, but rather are restricted to qualified parties.

LINDQUIST v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2024

To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “1) the statute or regulation clearly applies to the conduct of the defendant; 2) the defendant violated the statute or regulation; 3) the violation of … The California plaintiffs claim that NCB qualifies as a “business” under the CPPA. First, they argue that an entity can qualify as both a “business” and a “service provider” under the CCPA. Pls.’

Williams v. City of Philadelphia

270 F.R.D. 208 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2010

The District Attorney concedes that Plaintiffs’ Counsel is qualified to represent the class. … The evidence in this case establishes that there is no available administrative remedy for overcrowding in the PPS.

Baird v. Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis, Co., LPA

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

Seeking to benefit from the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s (“TCJA”) tax advantages and defer capital gains from the net proceeds of real estate sales, Baird decided to form a Qualified Opportunity Fund (“QOF”) and Qualified … Plaintiffs’ contentions align with the cases where the legal matter in the forum state established personal jurisdiction.

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Holder

957 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2013

’ application to depictions of clearly mature adults. … Labs., Inc., 93 F.3d 572, 575 (9th Cir.1996), to qualify.

In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation

42 F. Supp. 3d 735 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2014

establishing the defense of laches and a motion to dismiss generally is not a useful vehicle for raising the issue.”). … Plaintiffs assert that a no-AG provision qualifies as a “reverse payment,” citing their allegations that this type of provision “has tremendous value to the generic manufacturer,” EP Compl. ¶ 48; see also DP Compl. ¶ 58,

Jones v. Wetzel

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity.55 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its agencies, including the DOC, have not waived that immunity here.56 … Monko, 37 F.4th 909, 915 (3d Cir. 2022) (“A prisoner’s right to access the courts beyond the filing of the complaint was not yet clearly established in the Supreme Court or in this Court.

MCDERMID v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2021

for immunity under the PSLRA’s Safe Harbor provision for forward-looking statements. … Finally, Plaintiffs plead enough facts to establish the falsity of Kim’s statement that Inovio was on track to meet its goal of producing one million vaccine doses in 2020.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

284 F.R.D. 249 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2012

To assist them, Plaintiffs have retained attorneys who are highly qualified, experienced, and able to conduct this litigation. … Furthermore, Defendants have indicated during the course of these proceedings, particularly during the development of a discovery plan, that they intend to advance defenses, such as an agricultural cooperative immunity defense

United States v. Ortiz

878 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2012

Certainly, the Government’s Katzin investigation efforts could not qualify for the exception as it currently exists.”). … Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984), qualify as “binding precedent” under Davis . 14 (Gov’t Resp. 37-38.)

American Library Ass'n, Inc. v. United States

201 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague, 307 U.S. at 515 , 59 S.Ct. 954 . … and the library associations whose members qualify for such funding.

Ocasio v. Ollson

596 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2009

In his subsequent ADA lawsuit, the District Court did not reach the issue of collateral estoppel, holding instead that Plaintiff failed to establish that he was a “qualified individual under the ADA.” Id. at 404-05 . … Clearly the precise issue confronting the WCJ at Plaintiffs suspension proceeding was different than that being decided in the instant litigation.

Shawn Williams v. Teresa D. Miller, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2026

App’x 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2011) (“No Pennsylvania statute establishes, and no Pennsylvania court has recognized, a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”). … In Younger, 401 U.S. 37, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v.

Shawn Williams v. Teresa D. Miller, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2026

App’x 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2011) (“No Pennsylvania statute establishes, and no Pennsylvania court has recognized, a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”). … In Younger, 401 U.S. 37, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v.

McDonough v. Toys" R" US, Inc.

638 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2009

The subclass clearly includes only consumers of BabyBjorn carriers “distributed by Regal Lager.” (PL’s Definitions 1.) … Because the restraints caused higher prices, average prices would clearly have been lower without them.

Bartelson v. Dean Witter & Co.

86 F.R.D. 657 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 1980

Rule 23(a) prerequisites had not been met, the class should have been decertified. ' In holding that the class should have been decertified, the court found the case to be one in which the interests of the named plaintiff clearly … The plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified and able to conduct the litigation and there must be no antagonistic interests between plaintiff and the class.

Adhi Parasakthi Charitable, Medical, Educational, & Cultural Society of North America v. Township of West Pikeland

721 F. Supp. 2d 361 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2010

Although the lease *386 agreement is clearly between the Township and a Christian church, it, again, is not clear what use was being permitted. The room leased was the “Black Box theatre.” … After examining the Montgomery School’s application, we cannot conclude that it qualifies as similarly situated for the purposes of Defendant’s regulatory interests.

HOLT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2020

§ 455(a) or § 455(b)(1) is not generally established solely by adverse rulings. In all litigation, judges make rulings adverse to one or the other party. … With regard to courtroom management, the Court added that “ordinary efforts of courtroom administration — even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — remain immune.”