Case law

WARDEN v. WOODS SERVICES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) [she] is at least forty years old; (2) [she] suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) [she] was qualified for the position in … Although Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Clay addressed only sex discrimination, its reasoning clearly applies to age discrimination as well. Accord Timm v. Manor Care, Inc., Civ. A. No. , 2006 WL 6451234, at *5 (W.D.

STECHERT v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Barry from The Locks Law Firm—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” … Not only are the attorneys well qualified to pursue this suit, but they have done so with vigor.

LOCK v. BERRYHILL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2020

He claims that by only attaching limitations of no detailed instructions and occasional contact with people, the ALJ presented an insufficient and improper hypothetical that cannot qualify as substantial evidence. … In the present case, the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's symptoms, clearly demonstrating how he found plaintiff's complaints to be inconsistent with the evidence of record.

DUNDON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2026

“[I]t is well established that the test of whether the injury or damage is caused by an accident must be determined from the perspective of the insured.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Columbus v. … The opioid epidemic therefore does not qualify as an event under the plain language of the exclusion. Cf. Allen v.

GILLIAM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

Plaintiffs have established their standing. … Supp. 3d 147, 157-58 (D.D.C. 2018) (“forgoing food or other necessities [is] clearly irreparable in nature”).

BEHNKE v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2020

Medicare Part D was established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, for the purpose of providing prescription drug coverage to individuals qualified for Medicare. … It is well-established, however, that qui tam actions brought under the FCA must be pled with particularity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). U.S. ex rel. Schmidt v.

PRATER v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

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

“[I]n construing the federal RICO law, [the Third] Circuit has rejected the argument that personal injuries qualify as RICO injuries to ‘business or property.’” Williams v. … Here, Prater has not clearly identified the accounts in question, clearly described the misleading information in those accounts, or alleged that she filed a dispute about the information to which the furnisher of information

JAMES v. MCMANUS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2024

The health providers removed, asserting immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act from plaintiff’s COVID-19- related injuries. … James must allege facts establishing “badges of fraud” specified in the Act.62 The Act’s second theory of liability presumes constructive fraud where the creditor shows “without receiving a reasonably equivalent value

United States v. Spellman

243 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2003

Askari, 159 F.3d 774 (3d Cir.1998) (Askari III ”), our Court of Appeals considered whether a mentally ill bank robber who was unarmed and did not make specific verbal threats of harm qualified for a downward departure under … As interesting as this question may be, the answer has no bearing on Spellman’s case because the record clearly establishes that he subjectively intended his statements to be threatening and that his victims perceived his

Doe v. Guess, Inc

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2021

Plaintiff states he had extensive retail and sales experience and was qualified for his position with Defendants. Jd. … Pa. 2016) (‘It is well established that arbitration is merely a choice of dispute resolution and does not infringe upon statutory protections.’

COYLE v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

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

. § 1915(e) and will dismiss those claims because (1) any claims against the hospital or medical staff involved with the plaintiff’s treatment after being transported there from the jail are clearly barred by the statute … Prednisone . . . decreases your immune system’s response to various diseases to reduce symptoms such as swelling and allergic-type reactions.”

Webb v. Merck & Co., Inc.

450 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2006

See also Aman, 85 F.3d at 1085 (stating that “protesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct.”) … The first establishes an alternative for proving that an “unlawful employment practice” has occurred: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party

needle v. T Rowe Price Group Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 2022

However, the sisters qualified as “sellers” because they were contractually obligated to sell their shares of the securities to their brother, and once that sale took place, they became “sellers.” … Further, it is not “clearly” apparent on the face of the amended complaint that Plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred. See Westwood-Booth, 1999 WL 219897, at *1.

MARANT v. BERRYHILL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2020

When the government’s legal position clearly offends established precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be “substantially justified.” … As explained by Justice Sotomayor in her dissent in Lucia, “[t]he Court today and scholars acknowledge that this Court’s Appointments Clause jurisprudence offers little guidance on who qualifies as an ‘Officer of the United

CAIRNS v. MCGINLEY

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

Under the first subsection, the petitioner must show that the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law when “[it] resulted in an outcome that cannot reasonably be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent.”

Cullen v. Whitman Medical Corp.

197 F.R.D. 136 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2000

liability; (7) risks of maintaining class status; (8) risks of establishing damages; and (9) ability to withstand greater judgment. … As already discussed, the risks of establishing liability under the “complete sham” theory were substantial.

GARLAND v. BONDS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2020

Is Garland includes a copy of the affidavit of probable cause with both of his motions to dismiss. 16 Garland states that 1635 West Susquehanna Avenue “is clearly not a transient address or homeless shelter” and … That is, the probable cause established by the warrant extended to whatever individual arrested Garland. See Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo.

IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2025

The Settlement Agreement establishes that, in order to make a valid Tier 1 claim, a Class Member must attest to (1) having cancelled and replaced impacted cards and (2) the number of impacted cards replaced in response … First, while the August 1 Letter advised class members who desire to file a Tier 1 claim to “confirm that [their] financial institution cancelled and replaced qualifying cards,” and the Claim Form advised class members

GREEN v. KAUFFMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2020

established [Supreme Court] law.”57 A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court law where the state court incorrectly relies on a “different” law than one controlling the specific issue … counsel performed “deficient[ly]” and thereby prejudiced him.100 We find no basis to disagree with the Pennsylvania courts’ holding trial counsel performed deficiently if they “made errors so serious” so as to not qualify

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

402 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1975

It identifies the establishment of INCO in 1961 as one of the “History' Highlights” of the company. … Even though venue were clearly established, as here, the extension often would make valid service impossible, since process could not be issued to run for such corporations to the foreign countries of which they are ‘inhabitants