Case law

Brooks v. TRANS UNION LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2024

Here, the first issue is satisfied as the class in this matter has clearly defined parameters and shares one common claim under § 1681e of the FCRA. … Trans Union argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish commonality or predominance in this case.

Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. Director of Internal Revenue

406 F. Supp. 1098 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1976

Thus, the government clearly has the ultimate “obligation to return the originals of the books and papers” subpoenaed. … He will obtain immunity grants and . . . will ultimately draft the indictment or information, if one is needed. Panel and Discussion— . . .

LONG v. SAUL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 2022

He is able to communicate clearly and is able to self-advocate. … He is able to communicate clearly and is able to self-advocate.

T.N. INCORPORATION LTD. v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2021

Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008), and “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such.” In re Paoli R.R. … Nevertheless, the Intraha report clearly relies on the excluded source code.

MEACHAM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2019

The Commissioner’s regulations in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision clearly state that the responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC lies with the ALJ. … Wander - as a state agency medical consultant - was per se qualified to issue a medical opinion for the ALJ’s consideration.”).

STEVENS v. SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2020

Any uncashed checks will revert to the Qualified Settlement Fund and will be paid to the Plan for the purpose of defraying administrative fees and expenses of the Plan. … In Warfarin Sodium I, the trial court found that the risk of establishing damages strongly favored settlement, observing that “[d]amages would likely be established at trial through a ‘battle of experts,’ with each side

SCALIA v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2021

The Department of Labor interpreted Alvarez to “clearly stand{] for the proposition that where the aggregate time spent donning, walking, waiting and doffing exceeds the de minimis standard, it is compensable.” … East Penn, however, excises the rest of the provision which qualifies when an employer may avail itself of this excuse: the prior investigation must have “involved the same circumstances in the current investigation.”

TANNOUS v. CABRINI UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2023

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Tannous must plead that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he is qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action … When Cabrini University moved to dismiss this claim, it attached Tannous’ contract and the faculty handbook, arguing that “the handbook and its social media addendum clearly authorizes Cabrini to terminate an employee for

BEY v. FIDELITY INVESTMENT LLC.

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

Kingston further certifies that, by “virtue of the authority vested in [her] by the Federal Arbitration Act,” Kingston “executed the attached Arbitration Award . . . as [a] duly qualified Arbitrator for American Arbitration … First and foremost, Plaintiff is completely unable to establish mutual assent to be bound by the Demand Letter and related correspondences.

Smith v. Presidio Networked Solutions, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2024

A fee award “is within the district court’s discretion so long as it employs correct standards and procedures and makes findings of fact not clearly erroneous.” Loughner v. … To obtain attorneys’ fees, a plaintiff must establish that they are the prevailing party and that the requested fees are reasonable. Hare v. Potter, 549 F. Supp. 2d 698, 702 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (citing Pino v.

Anand v. Independence Blue Cross

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2021

Anand has not satisfied the burden imposed on a plaintiff seeking relief under ERISA to establish that he was a participant or beneficiary in a qualifying insurance plan. See Mitchell v. … Andersen, 882 F.3d at 1226 (“Congress has therefore clearly intended to grant a specific class of beneficiaries—Medicaid-eligible patients—an enforceable right to obtain medical services from the qualified provider of their

P v. PARKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2021

To establish a violation of § 504, a parent must show: (1) the child was disabled; (2) the child was “‘otherwise qualified’ to participate in school activities … Nowhere do the relevant provisions indicate that MP may not 10 Parkland’s response letter clearly identifies Plaintiffs’ letter-request as one for an “IEE.” See R2. 146.

Norman v. TRANS UNION, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2020

The requirements of Rule 23 are well-established. … Importantly, Congress clearly recognized different actors within the consumer reporting system.

Czubaroff v. Schlesinger

385 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 1974

Clearly it cannot. The words themselves refute such a conclusion. In fact, the converse is more properly deducted: that Dr. Czubaroff did not resolve the “conflict” in his mind until after enlistment. … However, any social service I perform should be in a civilian area where I am qualified — namely, psychiatry' — and thus can best use my training and skills.

Charles v. UPS National Long Term Disability Plan

145 F. Supp. 3d 382 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

That sentence clearly states: “We have discretionary authority to review all denied claims for benefits under this Policy.” … To think that the plaintiff would be qualified for those positions when he’ could not return to his driver position with UPS is illogical.

WILSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2026

Thus, it rejects “attempts to redefine clearly passive inaction as affirmative acts.” Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 178 (3d Cir. 2013). … Therefore, they do not qualify as affirmative acts within the meaning of Ye and do not satisfy the second prong of the fourth state-created danger requirement.

THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. v. HARTLEIB

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

Six months later, Hartleib had clearly not let the subject die, emailing Detective Goggin yet again “to see if any action was taken by [Goggin’s] department.” (Doc. No. 33 at p. 8.) … We conclude that such communications are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

STEINBERG

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

The disability claimant bears the burden of establishing steps one through four. … She asserted that “clearly her handicap has left her incapable of functioning within the normal limits of a woman her age.”

DOE v. HAVERFORD COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2023

so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprived the plaintiff “of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school,” and that the defendant’s response to the harassment was “clearly … There is no allegation that either Coach 1 or Haverford ever included any qualifier that Doe was removed due to a disciplinary 18 investigation, based

WHITE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2026

A plaintiff commencing an action in federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. … AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.”).