Case law

SALVITTI v. LASCELLES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2022

“The trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. (citing Leonard v. … The plaintiff sought to introduce an expert to establish the cost of corrective advertising efforts. Id. at *2.

FITZPATRICK v. CENTER FOR ADVANCED UROLOGY, LLC T/A MIDLANTIC UROLOGY

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

Neither is it disputed that this Court has supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under the PHRA, which clearly derives from a “common nucleus of operative facts” as the two federal claims. … To prevail under the ADA a plaintiff must show “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations

JOHNSON v. RANSOM

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

. § 2254 permits the Court to grant habeas relief only if (1) the state court’s adjudication of a claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … He does not refer to any clearly established federal law that required his attorney to investigate Thomas in order to validate his waiver of her testimony during the colloquy. Cf. Graves v.

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2023

plaintiff’s claim for relief; in this situation, even under the liberal notice pleading standard established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant cannot be expected to frame a proper, fact-specific defense … According to Plaintiff, because the defendants “were functioning as ‘actors,’ in their ‘private person capacity,’” they apparently “surrendered their legal, qualified immunity, and tax payer [sic] funded defense to their

WALKER v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2024

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony clearly establishes that Plaintiff made a retroactive request for an accommodation to excuse past misconduct. … The declaration offered by the Plaintiff clearly contradicts his prior deposition testimony to the extent it seeks to establish that he requested an accommodation prior to June 7, 2021 – when he accrued the number of points

SHARIFI v. AMERICAN RED CROSS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2022

Age discrimination may be established by direct or indirect evidence. Duffy v. Paper Magic Grp., Inc., 265 F.3d 163, 167 (3d Cir. 2001). … Apr. 27, 2020) (“Liability under this cause of action is ‘reserved by the courts for only the most clearly desperate and ultra extreme conduct.’”) (citing Hoy v.

FAULK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2026

First, Plaintiff clearly identifies the portions of the SAC she seeks to preserve. ECF No. 48 at 1–2. Second, Plaintiff identifies the additional factual allegations she seeks to add through the TAC. Id. … To establish a prima facie case under the ADEA, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is forty years of age or older; (2) the defendant took an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) the circumstances

IN RE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER DATA SECURITY LITIGATION

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

Coates, Esquire—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). … The fourth and fifth factors—risks of establishing liability and damages—also counsel in favor of approving the settlement.

CHONG v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.

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

The Court has already addressed these contentions: MT argues that summary judgment against it should be denied because 7-Eleven has not clearly established the existence of MT’s breach. … Newman may have admitted that “it’s possible” that 7-Eleven’s financial audits were “inaccurate,” he also qualified this statement by explaining that it was “highly unlikely.” Jd. at 90:7-12.

HARTY v. NEM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2021

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Plaintiff Owen Harty is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, qualifying him as a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). … its benefits,’” before a defendant can establish that the costs would exceed the benefits.

HART v. DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2020

qualifies as a merely nominal party in this matter and therefore is exempt from consideration in the removal analysis.” See Mot. Recons. ¶ 28, ECF No. 10. IV. … “To establish that a non-removing party is a nominal party, the removing party must show that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the non-removing defendant in

KAISINGER v. WALMART STORES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2024

“Evidence should only be excluded on a motion in limine if it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. … This requirement has been interpreted liberally, and “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training” may qualify someone as an expert. Id.

United States v. Ligambi

890 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2012

The Government “must clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences, no link of which can be the inference that because the defendant committed ... … its illegal objectives and establishing the credibility of the cooperating witness.

BARNETT v. MOONEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2019

An “adequate” state rule must be “firmly established and regularly followed.” Id. … Therefore, at the time Barnett waived his PCRA rights, this state procedural rule did not speak in unmistakable terms and was therefore not “clearly established.”

Dovin v. Chester County Department of Aging Services

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2023

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court has the power to “issue a temporary restraining order . . . if [the movant] clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the … June 8, 1995) (“[T]o qualify for this exception, the plaintiff must show that ‘every clause, sentence and paragraph’ is ‘patently violative of express constitutional provisions.’”); see, e.g., In the Interest of M.B., 686

Frontline Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc.

880 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2012

A court’s analysis of patent infringement is a well-established two-step process: (1) the meanings of disputed claims are construed; and (2) the allegedly infringing device is compared to the claims as construed. … Put another way, in Mitsuoka contractors could apply for positions and then the computer system selected the contractor best qualified for the position.

BARENBAUM v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC

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

Where, as here, the moving party argues that the complaint, on its face, fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction, a court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Mortenson v. First Fed. Sav … Here, the typicality requirement is clearly met.

PRICE v. COMMONWEALTH CHARTER ACADEMY CYBER SCHOOL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2019

As the Hearing Officer explained, it is undisputed that JH had disabilities which qualify JH for special education services. … that TR would qualify for gifted programming.

PERRY-HARTMAN v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2021

coupled with timing to establish a causal link. … A claim for hostile work environment based on disability requires a plaintiff to establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA; (2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment

Boley v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2021

Retirement Savings Plan (“Plan”), a defined contribution plan under which its qualified employees can invest a portion of their paycheck in one or more of thirty available investment options. … The evidence required to establish the applicability of the section 404(c) defense likewise hinges on the Plan rather than on individual Plan participants.