Case law

Barclay v. Keystone Shipping Co.

128 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2001

Plaintiff Victor Francis Barclay joined the oil tanker M/T Ocean City as a QMED (qualified member of the engineering department) in late November 1998 under a contract, also known as articles of agreement, to serve 120 days … “The Jones Act establishes a uniform system of seaman’s tort law,” providing a vehicle for a seaman to recover against his employer for personal injuries. Miles v.

MOLLOY v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Although the case was filed in 2019, Plaintiffs have worked with Class Counsel since 2017 to provide background information about themselves and their medical history.13 Class counsel are qualified, experienced, and fully … provided to the class members.19 “Rule 23(c)(2) requires ‘the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.’”20 The notice clearly

SESCEY v. SESCEY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

SESCEY v. SESCEY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

MOET v. UNITED STATES MILITARY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

MOET v. UNITED STATES MILITARY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

SESAY v. XFINITY/COMCAST

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

SESAY. v. UNITED STATES MILITARY/ARMY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

MOET v. PARLIMENT

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers

388 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 1974

The affidavits which recite these remarks are therefore clearly insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify my disqualification. IV. … The applicable law clearly permits me to continue to preside over the instant case.

WIGGINS v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2022

S/O Smith was clearly inspired by S/O Ayers. … Plaintiff contends that these events establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender because he is a male, he was qualified for his position, he was removed from his supervisory position and the Account,

Van Arsdel v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston

267 F. Supp. 3d 538 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2017

[by] showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute”). … Avioli clearly used language not contained in the DOT definition of sedentary work insofar as she mentioned the use of a cane while moving or standing, the plaintiff does not effectively argue how the reference to the cane

MOET v. ROC NATION/KAMARA TURNEY FAMILY

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

Even assuming Bivens applies in the context Sesay alleges, sovereign immunity bars her claims against the United States Military, the Biden Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. … See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”); Treasurer of New Jersey v.

In re Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation

218 F.R.D. 79 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2003

Plaintiffs claim that the proposed classes qualify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which provides: An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in … Although the extent to which existing competition, brand loyalty, and regulatory costs would have'reduced the extent of price competition between FMC and Asahi will clearly be disputed issues in the merits stage of this litigation

JUSTIS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

“A determination is not clearly arbitrary and capricious if the MSPB ‘has reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the decision.’” Strickland, 105 F.4th at 291 (quoting FCC v. … “It is clear from the statute that in the absence of one of the five qualifying ‘particularly serious’ adverse actions, the MSPB lacks jurisdiction.”

Eagan Ex Rel. Keith v. Jackson

855 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 1994

Clearly, Mr. Keith’s duty to superintend the litigation, including his willingness to terminate Bross, Strickland’s representation if it proved to be inadequate, was compromised by this arrangement. … The balance of the fund shall be paid to the guardian of the estate of the incompetent qualified to receive the fund, if he has one or one is to be appointed.... Pa.R.Civ.P. 2064. 18 .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. AMBASSADOR ADVISORS, LLC

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

Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 17 (1979) (“§ 206 establishes federal fiduciary standards to govern the conduct of investment advisers.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). … Because Defendants’ disclosures fall in the gray area between clearly sufficient and clearly insufficient, the Court must leave it to the jury to decide whether Defendants’ disclosures were adequate. ii.

McDonald v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2025

This element requires a plaintiff to allege facts to establish that state actors “used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed.” Kneipp v. … In sum, Plaintiffs’ attempt to frame Defendant Fulton’s alleged conduct as an affirmative act by merely placing the word “affirmatively” before what clearly amounts to an assurance, omission, and/or failure to act does

LOUIS M. MARSON JR., INC. v. ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2020

“If an entity accepts responsibility for ensuring the delivery of goods, then that entity qualifies as a carrier regardless of whether it conducted the physical transportation.” Id. at 287 (emphasis added). … The record contains no writing that clearly states that Defendant acted as a broker with respect to the July 21, 2018 shipment.

Ferdinand Drexel Inv. Co., Inc. v. Alibert

723 F. Supp. 313 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 1989

The moving party must clearly show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), on remand, Catrett v. … discussion of the RICO cause of action, plaintiffs argue that even in the absence of mail fraud [or, arguably, securities fraud] there is a RICO cause of action because of “the many illegal acts of the Defendants which qualify