Case law

GIOVANNI v. BAYER PROPERTIES, LLC

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

Second, the Court determines whether the facts alleged establish a plausible claim for relief. at 211. … Litig., 381 F.3d 267, 280 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Plaintiffs relied at their peril on the possibility of adding to their complaint, but in doing so they clearly risked the prospect of the entry of a final dismissal order.”’).

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

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

However, the studies cited by BI clearly establish the proposition that a PIF below 60 L/min is suboptimal. See Chee H. … GSK argues that this disclaimer is ineffective because the Second Circuit has held that where a “deception is caused by a clear and unambiguous false representation . . . and, because of this, the addition of a qualifying

HIMES v. FIVE BELOW, INC.

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

Though Defendants never clearly quantified Five Below’s total shrink expense or broke down the causes of the shrink, Defendants repeatedly represented that it was caused by shoplifting. … Plaintiffs also attempt to rely on Defendant Bull’s post-class period statements to establish scienter.

MCCOLLUM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2022

Record at 742, 743. 3 Under the regulations which apply to cases such as this, which were filed before new rules were adopted on March 27, 2017, information from a therapist cannot establish the existence of a medically … Finally, objective testing from 2017 clearly demonstrates a medical basis for McCollum’s claimed back pain.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University most clearly articulates this “majority” view. … The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected the interpretation of “borrow” espoused in Swearinger and concluded that “[t]he evidence adduced in support of [] summary judgment does not establish beyond genuine dispute that LSU

DOE

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

Such conduct must be “so extreme as to permit recovery” and recovery will only be granted “in limited circumstances where the conduct has been clearly outrageous.” Id. (citations omitted). … De Sabato qualifies as an expert under Rule 702’s liberal policy of admission.

MASON v. WETZEL

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

For habeas relief to issue, the state court’s decision must have: (1) been “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States … The Third Circuit has “held that statements containing express assertions not offered for their truth may contain implied assertions that qualify as hearsay because the truth of the implied assertions is at issue and relevant

SHEEHAN v. EVERSTORY PARTNERS

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

The Arbitration Agreements clearly require arbitration of “any and all claims, disputes or controversies arising out of or in any way related to . . . … May 29, 2024) (“To qualify as a ‘sexual assault dispute’ or ‘sexual harassment dispute’ under the EFAA, a plaintiff’s claim must be sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”

SALVITTI v. LASCELLES

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 2023

certain “extraordinary circumstances,” including where “(1) new evidence is available; (2) a supervening new law has been announced; or (3) the earlier decision was clearly … Given that Plaintiffs have not pointed to sufficient evidence which identifies, qualifies, or quantifies the value of benefit conferred upon Defendants, they have not offered “

HASSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2026

Benefits Established by the Settlement Agreement 1. … The Risks of Establishing Liability, Establishing Damages, and Maintaining a Class Action Through Trial “By evaluating the risks of establishing liability, the district court

MARCUM v. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2023

Legal Standard Remittitur “is well established as a device employed when the trial judge finds that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported and/or excessive.” … In that the evidence does not establish that the jury’s award was “clearly unsupported,” irrational, or unreasonable, Columbia’s Motion for Remittitur shall be denied. Spence, 806 F.2d at 1201.

UTESCH v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC.

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

These materials are clearly relevant to UPRRS’s allegations that Lannett issued false or misleading statements concerning the scope and results of the internal review and, moreover, Defendants have not objected to the … UPRRS next contends that materials generated during the course of the internal investigation cannot qualify for work product protection, because Lannett has not established that the internal investigation materials UPRRS

UTESCH v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2020

These materials are clearly relevant to UPRRS’s allegations that Lannett issued false or misleading statements concerning the scope and results of the internal review and, moreover, Defendants have not objected to the … UPRRS next contends that materials generated during the course of the internal investigation cannot qualify for work product protection, because Lannett has not established that the internal investigation materials UPRRS

Talbert v. Pennsylvania Attorney General

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

Moreover, per Petitioner, Art. 1, Sec. 12 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution clearly states that only legislators may suspend laws, not the State Supreme Court. … Therefore, Magistrate Judge Sitarski correctly concluded that these delays do not show bad faith or harassment, and therefore do not qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” necessitating release.

Holcombe

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 4, 2025

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to qualify as an expert is now moot. 2 The facts are largely drawn from the parties’ stipulated fact submissions (ECF Nos. 93-2, 95) and the exhibits cited … He was clearly negatively influenced by her presentation . . . .

NIKOLOV v. LIVENT CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2020

Defendants contend that the Registration Statement clearly stated that construction of Nemaska’s facilities was delayed and, as a result, any supply from Nemaska was speculative and contingent on the agreement or arbitration … Livent plainly qualifies that the growth in demand for lithium hydroxide from EV customers was anticipated to occur over the next number of years.

FRANK VAN'S AUTO TAG, LLC v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2021

The Court then determines whether the facts alleged establish a plausible claim for relief. Jd. at 211. … So, Frank Van’s cannot rely on this section either. 6 But the weight of domestic case law, largely dismissing claims against insureds with prejudice, is clearly not the only approach to interpreting insurance contracts

DONDERO v. LOWER MILFORD TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2019

Clearly, 399 F.3d 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2005). … Once it is determined that a police officer qualifies for benefits under the Heart and Lung Act, his disability status cannot be changed from temporary to permanent unless a due process hearing is afforded.

GRIMES v. THE DETENTION CENTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2024

practices that were so permanent and well settled as to establish acquiescence”). … Any amended complaint should clearly describe the factual basis for Grimes’s claims and explain how each Defendant was involved in the alleged denial of his Constitutional rights. Grimes’s remaining motions (Doc.

Choice Hotels International , Inc. v. Jai Sai Baba, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 11, 2025

Summa testified that Choice, when limiting the number of qualified vendors, was obligated to obtain volume discounts for their franchisees. ECF No. 16-1, at 23. … Respondents have provided no clear evidence to establish that his decisions were made because of bias, they merely express disapproval of his decisions, which is insufficient to establish evident impartiality.