Case law

Trist v. FIRST FEDERAL S. & L. ASS'N OF CHESTER

466 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 1979

Further, even if a consistent refund pattern were established, its rebuttal significance would be unimpressive. … If Venzie proof is “critical” in a price-increase case, then such conspiracies are immune from antitrust liability. This is absurd on its face.

RHOADS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2022

Here, Garbin opines that Defendants should have established and adhered to practical refusal criteria. … Here, the facts upon which Cowhey’s opinion relies are clearly based on evidence in the record.

SIV v. SUPERINTENDENT MASON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2022

Where “the petition clearly is untimely and must be dismissed [and] [c]ounsel will provide no benefit to petitioner or the court[,] Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel should be denied.” Id. at *14-15. … [I]n limited circumstances, a language barrier can qualify for equitable tolling.

Kuhns v. City of Allentown

636 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

A plaintiff may show such a nexus by establishing that the state and a private actor conspired with one another to violate an individual’s rights. Adams v. … Section 1983 only provides a remedy for deprivation of rights established or secured under the constitution or laws of the United States. Albright v.

LOMBARDO v. ZANELLI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2024

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

CHAVANNE v. ERIE INSURANCE

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

App'x 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s FDCPA, FCEUA and UTPCPL claims where the obligation at issue did not qualify as a “Debt” or “personal or household” transaction under the statutes … In the instant matter, a subrogation claim based upon Plaintiff’s negligence is clearly not a transaction dealing with “goods and services” that are primarily for “personal or household purposes.”

CHAVANNE v. SECOND LOOK, INC.

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

App'x 142 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s FDCPA, FCEUA and UTPCPL claims where the obligation at issue did not qualify as a “Debt” or “personal or household” transaction under the statutes … In the instant matter, a subrogation claim based upon Plaintiff’s negligence is clearly not a transaction dealing with “goods and services” that are primarily for “personal or household purposes.”

ROMAN v. COUNTY OF CHESTER

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

antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.” … * * * 12 In his opposition brief, Roman argues that he “has clearly proven he suffered

WALKER v. CENLAR, FSB

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2023

However, the evidence Cenlar points to clearly shows that the loan was refinanced in November 2019. (Def’s. Mot., ECF 60-1, at p. 2–3 (citing ECF 60-6 Ex. D)). … In the absence of evidence beyond the communications directed solely at him, Plaintiff has not met his summary judgment burden with respect to whether Cenlar qualifies as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

DURST v. BERRYHILL

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

The ALJ clearly considered the records that Plaintiff is pointing to. … As the Plaintiff explains, however, “[t]he ALJ’s hypothetical omitted those credibly established limitations.” (Id.).

United States v. Sewards

879 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 1995

First, we believe defendant would present evidence that impacted on his capacity to form mens rea which is clearly prohibited by Pohlot . … Petitioner has not demonstrated that his drug addiction resulted in a physical or mental impairment that would qualify for downward departure under § 5K2.13.

United States v. LBS Bank-New York, Inc.

757 F. Supp. 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1990

Second, LBS contends that a judgment of acquittal must be granted because there is no evidence establishing with whom LBS allegedly conspired. … Those opinions are of little use in defining what qualifies as "outrageous conduct”, however, because the Supreme Court’s decision in Hampton v.

GOLDSMITH

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

If any money is left in this account at the end of the Trial Period Plan and the account qualifies for a Permanent Mortgage Modification, those funds will be deducted from amounts that would … See Gregg, 245 A.3d at 652 (affirming the trail court’s finding that a failure to “clearly and fully” explain the terms of a life insurance policy “created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding”).

WILLIAMS v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2025

Williams must qualify as a “lessee” under the UCC to assert an implied warranty claim. See 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2A210. Because Kingson — not Mr. … “To establish a prima facie case under ECOA [a plaintiff] must show that (1) plaintiff was a member of a protected class; (2) plaintiff applied for credit from defendants; (3) plaintiff was qualified for the credit; and

A.K. v. COUNCIL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

The Plaintiffs — four students who qualify as children with disabilities under the IDEA, and their parents — sued Council Rock and Central Bucks School Districts, where the students attend school. … The burden of establishing standing rests with the plaintiff, who must “clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.”

United States v. THE DORCHESTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION

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

This is particularly true as to the claims of Bernard Halpern, who has qualified as an “aggrieved individual” – the jury’s verdict in favor of Mr. … Halpern clearly entitles him to an award of damages.

BYRNE v. NOEM

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2025

But while 180 days is clearly not a fixed deadline, it is a far cry from 17 months, or 516 days. … nonimmigrant status to conform with subsequent legislation, and to codify changes based on DHS’ experience implementing the program since 2002 and in response to public comments it received.12 One amendment was the establishment

SPEED v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2024

“[T]he burden is on the removing party to establish [both] federal jurisdiction,” Johnson v. … First, remand will avoid the possibility of a later determination that the district court lacked jurisdiction and, secondly, remand is normally to a state court which clearly has jurisdiction to decide the case.”

Beganovic v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2024

“[T]he burden is on the removing party to establish [both] federal jurisdiction,” Johnson v. … First, remand will avoid the possibility of a later determination that the district court lacked jurisdiction and, secondly, remand is normally to a state court which clearly has jurisdiction to decide the case.”

ENGLE v. BERRYHILL

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

Plaintiff’s date last insured was December 31, 2017, requiring her to establish that she became disabled on or before that date to qualify for DIB. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.101(a). … This case has been pending for over three years, and thus, further delay would clearly work to Plaintiff's prejudice.