Case law

JACOBY DONNER, P.C. v. ARISTONE REALTY CAPITAL, LLC

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

need not be present, piercing the corporate veil requires that the moving party demonstrate that “the corporation was an artifice and a sham to execute illegitimate purposes and [an] abuse of the corporate fiction and immunity … Testimony by Attorney Griffith on the above-enumerated subjects—which involves the application of legal principles and doctrines to the facts of this case—clearly exceeds the proper role of an expert witness.

FATA v. DELGADO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2025

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.” Id. at 327. … A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v.

Gatto v. United States

997 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1997

Aso, post-sentence rehabilitative efforts clearly do not provide a legal basis for a sentencing departure. … The proffered evidence was not remotely adequate to establish a defense of duress and coercion.

BRANDYWINE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LP v. EAST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2020

Neighbors have not clearly articulated the exact nature of the property interest at issue. … The complaint need not include facts which undeniably establish the cause of action but must include “enough” to state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 570.

United States v. Union Corp.

259 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2003

The harmful effects from lower doses may include immune system dysfunction, organ failure and physiological impairment. (T. Tr. at III — 51—52; Gov. Ex. 647 at 36). … In sum, the factors creating the endangerment must be imminent, even if the harm may not occur for some time and the third circuit has clearly stated that the EPA may “authorize[] the cleanup of a site, even a dormant one

GREENWALD CATERERS INC v. LANCASTER HOST LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2023

Plaintiffs appear to assume without explanation that this obligation applies to the Hotel, but as the Hotel points out, it clearly applies to the Group and acts to prohibit guests from removing furniture, e.g., to make … Even if undisputed and considered a “fact,” that allegation obviously cannot establish breach. Kosher requirements.

Aarp v. Eeoc

390 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2005

A change in law can also qualify as one of the "other reasons" justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). … The earlier part of this opinion detailed how neither the Erie County decision nor the plain text of section 4(a)(1) clearly and unambiguously establishes that the ADEA applies to retiree benefits at all or that it prohibits

SWARTZ v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

“To establish that a continuing violation theory should apply to their case, the Plaintiffs must show (1) that at least one act occurred within the statutory period, and (2) that prior … Swartz has not alleged that Doyle knew he was qualified for non-lab positions, that Doyle ever told a specific prospective employer that Swartz was not qualified for non-lab positions

BRAUNER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2026

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she sought to attain or retain; (3) she suffered an adverse … Simmermon — did not reference gender, and thus his remarks do not clearly support an inference of gender bias. Additionally, Ms. Brauner testified that Mr.

MAIN STREET AMERICA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. CONNOLLY CONTRACTORS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2022

Like a motion to dismiss, “[u]nder Rule 12(c), judgment 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 as a matter of … Nevertheless, the Third Circuit held: This argument, however, ignores that the Gambone Court, following Kvaerner, clearly focused on whether the alleged

RIVERA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2025

Rivera alleges that Simpson’s use of deadly force qualifies as “malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.” (Id.) He claims that he has suffered injuries requiring multiple surgeries. (Id. at 5.) … These allegations clearly fall far short of stating an excessive force claim.

PERRY v. FADDIS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2023

Schillinger, 761 F.2d 921, 929 (3d Cir. 1985) (a litigant must show “intentional or purposeful discrimination” to establish an equal protection violation). … As with his initial Complaint, although Perry vaguely alludes to “mental health” and “disabilities” he allegedly shared with the officers and paramedics, he does not clearly identify these disabilities or describe how they

HEMPHILL v. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 2020

Hemphill qualifies as an insured person with respect to the professional services he provided on behalf of MJC Labor.1 ECF 15, at 11. … Co., 221 3 In this Circuit, motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are governed by the well- established standard set forth in Fowler v.

GARZA v. WELLPATH MEDICAL

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

physically deal with inmate Garza,” and that he allowed “Garza to ‘keep the crutches’ and even providing Garza with a ‘chair’ in the cell to better accommodate inmate Garza’s condition.”49 Garza argues that “Nicholson clearly … Deliberate Indifference to Conditions of Confinement With respect to Garza’s prison condition allegations, the Medical Defendants argue that Garza cannot establish claims against them under the Americans with Disability

JONES v. SORBU

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2021

However, absent evidence that Defendants deprived Jones of a federal right, privilege, or immunity, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has no authority to direct the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“Pa. … To the extent Jones is requesting the Court issue a temporary restraining order, we note that a temporary restraining order may only be granted if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher

329 F. Supp. 1196 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 1971

A demonstration does not throw a cloak of immunity around illegal activity. In United States v. … This language would be definite, and immune to any challenge of overbreadth.

FATA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2026

Fata further alleges that an email from “Jessica (S.P.O.R.E.) to [ARM] establishes the ‘nexus’ for state-private liability.” (Id.) … 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

Verticalnet, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance

492 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2007

Specialty’s Motion for Summary Judgment The parties agree that the Jodek action qualifies as both a “Securities Claim” and a “Claim” as defined in the Policy. … As an initial matter, we note that overriding unambiguous contractual terms on the basis of public policy requires that the putative public policy be clearly established. See Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins.

Kovoor v. School District of Philadelphia

211 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2002

The Third Circuit has clearly stated that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to claims concerning the failure to promote. See Rush, 113 F.3d at 483-85 . … Defendants insists that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he was qualified for the available positions.

Reed v. Board of Directors of City Trusts

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2020

Defendant argues that these provisions establish a “clear” and “mandatory” grievance process and “designat[es] arbitration as the exclusive forum for . . . state and federal statutory … As noted above, Articles III and XVIII of the CBA do not clearly and unmistakably waive plaintiff’s right to seek damages in this court.