Case law

PIERRE v. HEALTHY BEVERAGE LLC D/B/A THE HEALTHY BEVERAGE COMPANY

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

The Court must assess the “advertisement as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language.” Mantikas, 910 F.3d at 636. … But a panel does not immunize food and drink providers who deceive consumers elsewhere on the same product package. See Bell, 982 F.3d at 477; e.g., Thornton v. Pinnacle Foods Grp.

SHIELDS v. WIEGAND

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2023

Wiegand and the Township previously moved to partially dismiss Shields’s Amended Complaint, arguing Shields failed to allege facts which could establish that the police pursuit violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. … Given the inquiry’s fact-dependent nature, “the reasonableness of the use of force is normally an issue for the jury,” id. at 79 (cleaned up, quotations omitted); courts lack clearly defined rules for determining when conduct

CADDICK v. TASTY BAKING COMPANY

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

Such notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) … will benefit from $2,058,471 in the fund; (2) Only three individuals opted-out of the class, and no one filed any objections to the settlement or proposed attorneys’ fees; (3) Class counsel are qualified

FERNANDEZ v. ESTOCK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2021

The Third Circuit has addressed whether certain penalties against incarcerated individuals qualify as “compulsion” rising to the level of a Fifth Amendment violation. See Roman, 675 F.3d at 213 (citing McKune v. … Thus, Fernandez fails to establish the threshold requirement to a substantive due process claim.

Sarah Car Care, Inc. v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC

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

The TP Agreement states that ModivCare “wishes to enter into Agreements with qualified transportation companies for the provision of high-quality transportation services . . . under the terms and conditions set forth herein … Conversely, the Rule 56 standard will apply “when either the motion to compel arbitration does not have as its predicate a complaint with the requisite clarity to establish on its face that the parties agreed to arbitrate

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Barness

484 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 1980

Centennial’s rights in the instrument are clearly subject to the defense that Centennial, as holder and payee of the note, “induced the maker to become an accommodation party, as by actually agreeing that he should not be … We note that even if the note were negotiable, FDIC would not qualify as a holder in due course under the standards articulated in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 12A P.S. § 3-302(1).

W. v. Upper Darby School District

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2023

K.W. is a minor student with disabilities as defined under 20 U.S.C. § 1401 and is qualified for special education services under the IDEA. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6 in Civil Action 22-04347).1 K.W. … Kachmar’s September 2019 IEE clearly advising the District that K.W. required these special considerations. Cf. ECF No. 5-10, Ex. SD-1 at 39-40.

UPPER DARBY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. K.W.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2023

K.W. is a minor student with disabilities as defined under 20 U.S.C. § 1401 and is qualified for special education services under the IDEA. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6 in Civil Action 22-04347).1 K.W. … Kachmar’s September 2019 IEE clearly advising the District that K.W. required these special considerations. Cf. ECF No. 5-10, Ex. SD-1 at 39-40.

ISMAIL v. DOMINION ENERGY INC.

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

At all times material hereto, DEFLLC qualified as Plaintiff’s employer pursuant to [Title VII].”).) … Plaintiff clearly understood the differences between Dominion and DEFLLC.

Levan v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

clearly and concisely each issue presented for review arising from: (1) specific findings the Plaintiff contends are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) alleged evidentiary or administrative errors; and (3) alleged … P, App. 1 § 12.04C.23 Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff’s “supportive family structure and environment” qualify for the “C” criteria.

BOYLE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2026

Detective Vega was properly qualified to testify as a cell site 20 Patrol Lieutenant Lawrence E. … And Boyle testified he shot firearms during his military service and qualified as an expert. Id. at 74:12-13. Thus, this claim will be denied.

BECKER v. EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2020

At the pleading stage, the plaintiff “must clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating each element” of standing. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). … To establish negligent noncompliance with section 1681e(b), the plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer’s credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant’s failure

DIRBIN v. PHILLY MARKETING GROUP INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2020

Plaintiff’s averments clearly state that she was paid more than the federal minimum wage, as her hourly rate of pay was $12.50. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) … It is also unclear from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint whether she was working on multiple different sales and marketing campaigns or only one, thus this Court cannot ascertain whether all sign-ups would qualify for commissions

HANS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 15, 2026

Mast cells are a type of immune cell responsible for immune reactions. … Unum disputes Therapist Eckert is qualified to opine on vocational issues.

MORGAN v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY & COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2022

Here, Valley Forge does not qualify as a state actor under any of the tests. … The facts set forth in Morgan’s complaint fail, as a matter of law, to establish that Valley Forge is a state actor for § 1983 purposes.

COMEGYS v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY & COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2022

Here, Valley Forge does not qualify as a state actor under any of the tests. … The facts set forth in Comegys’ complaint fail, as a matter of law, to establish that Valley Forge is a state actor for § 1983 purposes.

CARTEE-HARING v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

Donnelly did not have the requisite 30 post- graduate credits to qualify for his placement at Step 15. Id. at ¶ 29. … First, the plaintiff “must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that employees of the opposite sex were paid differently for performing ‘equal work’—work of substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility,

Marinello v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

Donnelly did not have the requisite 30 post- graduate credits to qualify for his placement at Step 15. Id. at ¶ 29. … First, the plaintiff “must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that employees of the opposite sex were paid differently for performing ‘equal work’—work of substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility,

KYEM v. MERAKEY USA

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

No. 44), and Plaintiffs’ counsel mailed the Notice to the 19 individuals Defendants identified as being qualified for the collective (Doc. No. 50-1 at 4–5). … Given this extensive preparation, Plaintiffs’ counsel clearly “had an adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating” the Proposed Settlement, and this factor weighs in favor of approval.

PUNZO v. SUGARHOUSE CASINO

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2022

In order to obtain a spoliation inference, a moving party must establish actual spoliation, which concerns situations where a party has altered, destroyed, or failed to produce evidence relevant to an issue in a case. … The Audition Form also does not clearly qualify as a “test paper” under 29 C.F.R. 1627.3(b)(1)(iv), since that section specifically refers to “[t]est papers completed by applicants.” Id. (emphasis added).