Case law

ALONZO v. TERRA

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

Alonzo’s state law claim against Officer Wagner, contending this claim is barred by sovereign immunity and fails on the merits, or that this Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction with respect to it. … Alonzo did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to being placed in administrative custody and does not qualify for an exception to exhaustion.

M.C. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2020

To accomplish that goal, Congress through the IDEA has established a “comprehensive . . . remedial scheme.” A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791, 803 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc). … A parent must request her child’s reevaluation clearly. In the Third Circuit, a parent’s request for a reevaluation of a student’s IEP must be made “clearly.” See D.K. v.

BITTERS v. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2021

The issue is whether damage to the insured’s home qualifies as a “collapse” covered by the insurance policy. The carrier has moved for summary judgment. … In Pennsylvania, terms that are “clear and unambiguous” should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning, unless they violate a clearly established public policy.” Kurach v. Truck Ins.

EGELKAMP v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2021

After meeting with Williamson, Croke said he found just $79.43 in “clearly authorized” tickets out of $695.79 in total. (Id.) … To meet its burden of persuasion with respect to the catchall affirmative defense in 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(iv), it must establish a differential between Egelkamp and Friedman based on any factor other than sex “‘so clearly

CARROLL v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY OF PA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2021

Eldridge.42 Director Austin and Vice President Richardson did not properly recite the standard for qualified immunity against Mr. Carroll’s due process claim.43 And we determined Heck v. Humphrey would not bar Mr. … Having failed to meet his burden of establishing that service was proper, Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed.68 In Conrad v.

Wilson v. Slatalla

970 F. Supp. 405 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1997

The documents upon which the defendants relied to gather information for the Eye Center passage do qualify as official government documents for purposes of the fair report privilege. … Plaintiff clearly contests the veracity of the incident as recounted by the defendants in the Book.

Various v. Various

673 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2009

First, defendants apparently never sought discovery which would have established that the two non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. … Under these circumstances, defendants have failed to show that the plaintiffs’ joinder of Oilfield Service was in bad faith or clearly fraudulent. b.

Robinson v. AMERICAN READING COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2025

Defendant also does not qualify as a “covered entity” and therefore does not fit within the scope of HIPAA’s prohibitions on disclosure of medical information. … The retaliation claim is adequate but could be more clearly stated, and Plaintiff’s attention is therefore directed to Fed. R. Civ.

RICE v. KARASTON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 2025

Rice’s official capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, and his claims against Officer Mantuce, Officer Antwon, and Unit Manager Grady were dismissed without prejudice due to … Any appeal must be clearly labeled as an appeal, include the grievance number, be legible, and contain the reasons for appealing the initial review response/rejection. Id. § 2.A(1)(d).

BROWN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 6, 2021

. § 1915A(b)(1), or that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief,” id. § 1915A(b)(2). … To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on the conditions of confinement, a prisoner must establish that prison officials’ acts or omissions denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”

ROBINSON v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2024

To establish a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he is: (1) a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities … Kelley that the ADA validly abrogates state sovereign immunity under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment where, as here, a plaintiff pursues relief for an actual violation of the Eighth Amendment (which independently

Schwartz v. Halter

134 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2001

Schwartz’s mental impairment is clearly erroneous.” (Id. at 6.) … In making this initial determination of mental impairment, “an ALJ is not required to employ the assistance of a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist,” although if the determination were made at an earlier level, such assistance

FELDSER v. MIRANDA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (“It is well established that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.”) … Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”) (citations omitted).

APACHE STAINLESS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. INFOSWITCH, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2020

Therefore, because Apache was acquiring no aspect of the liabilities of Mepaco, it also clearly could not have expected to be covered by the 1993 Settlement Agreement. … settlement of that lawsuit, means that Apache clearly understood they would not be covered by the subsequent Settlement Agreement that resolved the 1991 lawsuit.

Samoff v. BUILDING & CONST. TRADES COUN. OF PHILA.

346 F. Supp. 1071 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1972

concerning representation cannot appropriately be raised, or where the employees within the preceding twelve months have made known their views concerning representation, both the employer and the employees are entitled to immunity … These facts clearly distinguish Operating Engineers from the present case where the record supports the Council's conclusion that it is in no position to (and has no intention of) seeking representative status.

HEARD v. HAND & STONE MASSAGE AND FACIAL SPA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2024

Prima Facie Case of Race Discrimination To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a plaintiff is required to show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for … Prima Facie Case of Disability Discrimination To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that she (1) is disabled, (2) is a “qualified individual,”17 that is, qualified to

Sterling v. Redevelopment Authority

836 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2011

Here, the parties clearly intended that the doctrine of merger would not apply; the Redevelopment Agreement expressly addresses the issue and provides that “[n]one of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed or are … But to the extent that the RDA’s re-entry was, as Sterling alleges here, arbitrary and improper, it arguably implicates his ownership interest in the property, an interest that is clearly subject to substantive due-process

DOMINIQUE v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES)

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

Section 1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless[,]” including claims that describe “fantastic … The plaintiff, as the party commencing an action in federal court, bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

RODRIGUEZ

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2026

There are two ways to establish intended third-party beneficiary status in Pennsylvania. … First, Rodriguez may qualify as an express third-party beneficiary if he alleges facts to show that “both contracting parties,” i.e.

Ciolli v. Iravani

625 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

However, the cases that Plaintiff cites for this proposition deal with subject matter jurisdiction and thus are inapposite. 9 We also note that we clearly had the authority to rule on the Motion to Stay because several Defendants … However, there need not be ongoing or even threatened litigation for discussions to qualify as settlement negotiations. Affiliated Mfrs., Inc., 56 F.3d at 527-28.