Case law

In Re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation

817 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

Initiation of Avandia in patients with established NYHA Class III or IV heart failure is contraindicated. … In three of the four states at issue (Florida, New York and Texas), the adequacy of a warning to a physician 54 is ordinarily left to the jury, unless the warning so clearly and accurately conveys the risk of the complained-about

SHILOH v. PHILADELPHIA VASCULAR INSTITUTE LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

Here, the Government cites to the purported well-established medical standards of care for the treatment of PAD, offering authoritative guidelines established by multiple professional societies. … The Government expressly alleges, without qualifying with the phrase “information and belief,” that Defendants submitted claims to Medicare where patients did not pay copayments.

BRENNAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

Thus, the Court rejects this argument as a basis for establishing pretext. … Based on these factors, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s complaints were clearly made pursuant to his official duties as an employee of the City.

BROWN v. DELAWARE COUNTY COURTHOUSE ROOM 6

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2023

Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992) (“A District Court sitting in habeas corpus clearly has the power to compel production of the complete state-court record.”). … Mar. 10, 2008) (a habeas petition is legally frivolous if the claims are “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory’ or when it posits ‘factual contentions that are clearly baseless”).

McNEIL-PPC, INC. v. L. Perrigo Co.

207 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2002

concurrence of diarrhea and flatulence (e.g., the Gor-bach reference) together with those references that combined antidiarrheals with simethicone ( the Chavkin patent, French patent, and the MIMS reference) would have clearly … In assessing whether a case qualifies as exceptional, I must consider the totality of *374 the circumstances. See Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 978-79 (Fed.Cir.1986).

MAZZA v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION

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

1 Plaintiffs allege that MERS was not the nominee of America Wholesale Lenders regarding the Mortgage and Note relevant to the property in question, but the Mortgage that Plaintiffs signed clearly … Sept. 13, 2016) (holding that an allegation of knowingly filing false tax returns “fails to qualify as money laundering because there is no evidence that the transaction involves the

WALKER v. BRITTAIN

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

on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.”93 A state procedural rule is “independent” if it does not “depend[ ] on a federal constitutional ruling.”94 “To qualify … Walker, the evidence at trial established the blood trail exiting the van matched Mr. Walker’s blood.

LIBERTY RESOURCES, INC. v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

II Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in the ADA,4 which provides in relevant part, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason … The regulation also authorizes “[d]epartures from particular requirements . . . when it is clearly evident that equivalent access to the facility or part of the facility is thereby

ZAGAFEN BALA, LLC v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2021

Prima Facie Coverage As the insured, Plaintiffs have the initial burden of establishing coverage under the Policies. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. … Virus Exclusion Even if Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged their losses qualified for Business Income Coverage or Civil Authority Coverage, the Virus Exclusion precludes

ULTIMATE HEARING SOLUTIONS II, LLC v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2021

Under Pennsylvania law, the Court first determines whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing coverage under the Policy. See State Farm, 598 F.3d at 111. … The Limited Virus Coverage clearly states that the Policy only covers “Direct physical loss or direct physical damage to Covered Property caused by … virus.”

MUIR v. LINK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2021

Judge Sitarski explained that Attorney Hillis’s filing of a no-merit letter did not qualify as deficient performance. See id. (citations omitted). … A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief . . . will of course qualify.” Id. at 532.

SWEDA v. UPPER BUCKS COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2025

UBCTS’ Alleged Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Free Speech It has been clearly established that a state may not discharge a public employee on a basis that infringes upon the employee’s constitutionally protected … Insofar as Sweda likewise disagreed with the interpretation that medical proof of a qualifying disability was not necessary, a jury could well find he was engaged in constitutionally-protected associational conduct in

MOZELESKI v. MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA or PHRA, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) she is “otherwise qualified” for her position “with … Mozeleski has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

LARSSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2026

In response, Lyric clearly articulates a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Ms. Larsson’s termination: Ms. Wukitch testified that as Lyric evolved its sales and go-to-market approach, she determined Ms. … Larsson also says that she “can further establish a pattern of antagonism in the weeks leading up to the termination” because “negative comments” by Ms. Wukitch and Ms. Hankins evince a pattern of antagonism.

TOMASZEWSKI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link. … Supp. 2d 315, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that defendant’s “requirement that [plaintiff] submit additional medical documentation for an extension of disability leave” does not qualify as materially adverse).

Washington v. BRITTAIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 2022

If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, we, of course, will not undertake to review the decision.”); Wainwright … is immune from review in the federal courts The application of this principle in the context of a federal habeas proceeding has therefore excluded from consideration any questions of state substantive law, and thus

PIETY FOLEY v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY

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

The Court must “remain mindful that it is important to separate significant from trivial harms because an employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor … Because the Defendants would bear the burden of proof at trial as to these affirmative defenses, here they must “prove at least one affirmative defense ‘so clearly that no 15 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation

ERBY v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2022

—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” All seven attorneys are experienced in handling class actions. (See Doc. No. 56-1 at 17, 24.) … But then to have to bring all that back up again, to bring in all the paperwork, go through it, to make sure that the in fact his claim would qualify. He spent time in doing that.”).)

TANGRADI v. CITY/COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Plaintiff also claims that the City can be held liable under Monell because it “failed to have any policies related to the fixing of voting machines, and the fixing of voting machines by persons not qualified

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF MAJOR ITALIAN AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS, INC. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

To establish standing, “a plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing three elements...First, it must establish that it has suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ meaning a concrete and particularized … “‘Discriminatory classification is itself a penalty,’ and thus qualifies as an actual injury for standing purposes, where a citizen’s right to equal treatment is at stake.” Id. at 290 (citing Saenz v.