Case law

Resources for Human Development, Inc. v. Lower Providence Township

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2025

2 claims as an “ongoing” state action is now before this Court, raising the question of whether a removed action can still qualify … Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing

RUSSO v. THE BRYN MAWR TRUST COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 2022

Russo wrote that the customer was “clearly unstable” and the customer “offended” her. (Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 129-30; Pl.’s SDF in Opp. ¶¶ 129-30; Def.’s Ex. 209.) … The parties do not dispute that Russo is a member of a protected class and the Court will assume she was qualified for the position she held.

Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc.

856 F. Supp. 990 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1994

Copperweld, 467 U.S. at 771 , 104 S.Ct. at 2742 . 25 Thus, plaintiffs cannot establish concerted action by pointing to Mr. Redieh’s attendance at the January 4 meeting. … In sum, plaintiffs’ interpretation reads out of the contract the important qualifying provision that either party could terminate the contract at any time.

Ogontz Fire Company v. Cheltenham Township

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2026

For these reasons, CT pages 7050-7057, 7096-7099, and 7126 qualify as work product. … Dec. 14, 2015) (“[T]he corporation must clearly demonstrate that the communication in question was made for the express purpose of securing legal not • The Court will conduct an in camera review of CT 1069-1070, 1110-

NEXUS 1, LLC v. SIDWELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2025

The relevant question, however, is not whether the claims contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint relate to the Manufacturing Agreement; they clearly do. … It is the location of the transaction that establishes (or reflects the presumption of) the Security Exchange Act’s inapplicability.”).

COUSINS v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

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

However, if the alternative forum does not permit litigation of the dispute or the remedy provided is “so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all,” the difference in the law may be given substantial … To establish prescriptive jurisdiction, plaintiffs must demonstrate one of the following: injury to an American seaman or a seaman with American dependents; injury in American territory; American defendants; an

JACKSON v. ROSEN

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

An affidavit should establish that “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. … immunity.

Parker v. CENLAR FSB

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 2021

Thus, the only remaining thing Parker must establish is a causal connection between his complaints and his termination. … To state a claim for discrimination under the ADA, Parker must show: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable

REED v. BERNARD

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2020

The right to attend and report on trials and to have access to judicial records, albeit not absolute, has now been firmly established as a First Amendment right. … Public access to bail hearings is clearly guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Taylor v. United States

386 F. Supp. 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1974

There can be no doubt that Judge Savitt was an able and qualified attorney, fully capable of representing petitioner and we so find. … Taylor’s testimony clearly conflicts not only with that of Messrs. English and Crump but also with the official transcript.

Local No. 1 (aca), Broadcast Employees of The International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

419 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1976

We assume that more discovery will be taken, and perhaps that discovery will enable plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to permanent relief. … The alleged injury in this case is clearly imminent; the merger of Local 1 into Local 107 has been finally ordered, and that order has been reaffirmed by the GEB.

Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.

382 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 1974

As the time records show, petitioner Berger and his firm quite clearly spent less time in connection with this litigation than did petitioner Kohn. … The time spent by petitioners in connection with both of these activities quite clearly was not of benefit to the class as a whole.

Thomer v. Allstate Insurance

790 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 9, 2011

The UIM Claim Settlement In July of 2005, Mangold forwarded Allstate various medical bills and demanded the full $100,000 UIM policy limit claiming that damages clearly exceeded the combined policy limits of Allstate and … Furthermore, offering an amount at the lower estimated settlement range does not qualify as bad faith. Kosierowski, 51 F.Supp.2d at 592 .

Schmidt v. Ford Motor Co.

198 F. Supp. 3d 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2016

Because they are “covered by both the Emissions Defect Warranty and the Emissions Performance Warranty,” this list includes all parts specified as qualifying for the warranty period of eight years or 80,000 miles—i.e., the … But even if he could proceed on one of the two recognized theories, Gooder fails to establish that he provided Ford with a benefit.

PGT TRUCKING, INC. v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

To prevail on a breach of contract claim under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of an enforceable contract, (2) nonperformance amounting to a breach of the contract, and (3) damages caused … One, Exclusion 12 clearly prohibits coverage when PGT is listed on the bill of lading without qualification as to why or how PGT is included.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

505 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 1980

The JFTC, similar to our Federal Trade Commission, was established by the Anti-Monopoly Law in order to effectuate the Act’s purposes. … We note that the translations provided us differ somewhat in the placement of phrases, and we are of course not qualified to compare the original documents.

EMC OUTDOOR, LLC v. STUART

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2021

Clearly, as indicated by the relevant facts summarized above, the parties do not dispute the fact that EMC terminated Stuart’s employment. … The phrase “willful termination of employment by Employee only” clearly describes the former: the act of an employee ending his or her employment.

Temple University v. Salla Bros., Inc.

656 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 1986

. § 1962 (c) provides that the “person” must be employed by or associated with an “enterprise”; that the corporate *103 defendant clearly was not employed by the corporate defendant nor was it logical to say that the corporate … Salla was granted immunity from prosecution and that he testified before a Federal Grand Jury, which handed down an indictment in the case of United States v. John J.

PERRY v. WELL-PATH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2021

The Court will consider the January pleading to be a supplement to the Second Amended Complaint since Perry clearly intended it to be so, rather than a superseding third amended complaint. 3 The spelling … Conclusory allegations are insufficient, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678, and Perry identifies no actual policy, practice or custom that Wetzel established that caused his alleged injuries.

HOPE v. FAIR ACRES GERIATRIC CENTER

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

In the Court’s view, the evidence clearly supports a finding that all of Ms. … Mayer is not qualified to testify and his opinion on these issues is unreliable.