Case law

ROSE v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2020

At the conference they defined the scope of a potential settlement class and established a preliminary framework for class-wide relief. (Id.) … On the record before the Court, the Named Plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to those of other Settlement Class Members and Class Counsel are qualified, experienced and capable of litigating the Class’s claims

ELLIS v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 2, 2023

I note that it is unclear whether the USP requirement for packaging qualifies as a standard for strength, quality, or purity, as described in 21 U.S.C. § 351(b). … Supp. 2d 8, 23 (D.N.J. 2011) (dismissing state law claims where “Relator . . . does not clearly allege that false or fraudulent claims were submitted to . . . state payors.”).

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. WERLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2023

Implicit in this Request for Admission is the concession that the Dirt Bike qualified as a “motor vehicle” under 75 Pa. … Having concluded that the Werleys’ UIM limits in this case can stack on the Subject Policy, the remainder of the court’s analysis is well-established.

In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation

163 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2016

Additionally, Defendants’ decision to eliminate job quotes may qualify as traditional conspiracy evidence to avoid summary judgment. … Clearly, you can only stockpile so much and this may indeed displace some of the other plants in the Carolinas (National) and Virginia (USG).

BYRNE v. SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT

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

terms of exposure to danger.”87 “It is misuse of state authority, rather than a failure to use it, that can violate the Due Process Clause.”88 A plaintiff fails to plead a state-created danger claim by “redefin[ing] clearly … Principal Hepp also argues qualified immunity shields him from liability. Id. at 20–21. We need not reach this issue as we dismiss all claims. 215 Lansberry II, 356 F.

NATIONAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 2023

Under each of the Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factors, Class Counsel—Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP—is qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” … Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages. There are risks with establishing liability and damages. Defendants contest liability and damages. (See Doc.

PUGH v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

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

Mulkey then provides had birth asphyxia, Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes and resuscitation clearly are at increased risk of ASD.” Id. … First, a witness is qualified to provide expert testimony only if the witness has “specialized expertise” in the testimony’s subject matter. Schneider, 320 F.3d at 404.

GOREE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 2020

. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and therefore could not establish his entitlement to benefits on that basis, requiring that the evaluation process continue. (R. 127-29.) … He notes that the record documented qualifying earnings in 110 quarters over his 38-year work history, including 5 years of service in the U.S. Navy. (Id.)

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. Adesanya

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

Certain elements of this claim, based upon false pretenses, have already been established at summary judgment on collateral estoppel . . . . … The Adesanyas do not disagree with the Court’s interpretation of any specific provision, but instead, broadly suggest that the court was not qualified to interpret the Novartis Relocation 17 The Adesanyas argue that

In re Lehigh Valley Railroad

19 B.R. 978 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 1982

A separate Order establishes the timetable and procedure for submitting the Plan to creditors and stockholders for their vote. … Clearly, the Plan should not be approved by this Court unless it would be fair and equitable in the context of the Valuation Case settlement.

VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC. v. CEPHALON, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2020

Dunham filed an objection on the docket of the related case brought by the California Attorney General, but clearly intended to address the EPP Settlement. … Even if the EPPs were successful in establishing an unlawful reverse-settlement payment Actavis scheme with respect to Provigil, they faced an uncertain battle in establishing causation and damages.

HEPP v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS SERVICES, LLC

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

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free phone number for questions related to the Settlement. (Id. ¶ 6.) … The Settlement Agreement clearly reflects a compromise over issues that are actually disputed. See Potoski v. Wyo. Valley Health Care Sys. No. 11-582, 2020 WL 207061, at *3 (MD. Pa.

LUNEMANN v. KOOMA III LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2024

The class here is clearly ascertainable because the parties were able to determine the exact number and identities of servers using Defendant’s records, including payroll data, of its past and present employees. … Here, the proposed class counsel—Pete Winebrake, Esquire, and Michelle Tolodziecki, Esquire, of Winebrake & Santillo, LLC—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ.

STAR BUICK GMC v. SENTRY INSURANCE GROUP

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

“[E]ven the most clearly written exclusion will not bind the insured where the insurer or its agent has created in the insured a reasonable expectation of coverage.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. … The court qualified that “if asbestos is present in components of a structure, but is not in such form or quantity as to make the building unusable, the owner has not suffered a loss.

GRANT v. KAUFFMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2022

A court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court adjudication “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the … Only one of Grant’s allegations here qualify as improper vouching.

REID

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2026

Nos. 2, 5. 3 The sequential analysis requires the ALJ to evaluate (1) whether the claimant’s work, if any, qualifies as “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant’s medically determinable impairments are … For these reasons, I have found that she has not satisfied her burden of establishing that remand is required.

DOCKERY v. HERETICK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2021

To obtain a qualified order, the purchasing company is required to file an application for approval in any Virginia court. Va. Code § 59.1-477(A). … Dockery also argues that proposed class counsel are qualified to represent the class.

DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. G.W.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

The following review of the facts of the case will clearly identify actual factual disputes among the parties. The facts below are drawn from the Hearing Officer’s Ruling except as noted. a. … As the Hearing Officer observed, there is an “absence of objective evidence establishing a reasonably expected [progression] rate” in this case. Ruling at 12.

DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. G.W.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2020

The following review of the facts of the case will clearly identify actual factual disputes among the parties. The facts below are drawn from the Hearing Officer’s Ruling except as noted. a. … As the Hearing Officer observed, there is an “absence of objective evidence establishing a reasonably expected [progression] rate” in this case. Ruling at 12.

United States v. Mastronardo

987 F. Supp. 2d 545 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2013

Neither statement challenged by the defendant is necessary to establish probable cause. … Finally, the police did not use the grand jury because “there is no reason to believe that [defendants], or any of their co-conspirators would cooperate with the grand jury, with or without grants of immunity.