Case law

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.

ESTATE CHIMNEY & FIREPLACE, LLC v. BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

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

Clearly, the scope of coverage under the Policy does not extend to faulty workmanship, regardless of the legal claims used to seek redress for that faulty workmanship. … The Court concludes that the allegations in the underlying lawsuits fail to include the required fortuitous event necessary to qualify as an “occurrence” under the Policy.

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

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2023

You got a couple [movants], they are all more or less qualified. They are pretty much all in the same boat. Is this enough to throw the judge; maybe, maybe not.” … Aguilar describe what transpired in Kansas is clearly misleading the Minnesota Court.

IMAGE MASTERS, INC. v. CHASE HOME FINANCE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2024

If such an inquiry would not have shown Image Masters’ payments to be voidable, good faith will be established. Bonded Financial, 838 F.2d at 898. … Thus, if Image Masters had paid the homeowners directly, an inference would arise that those payments were fraudulent transfers and summary judgment would clearly have to be denied.

SCALIA v. LOCAL 98, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS

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

P. 12(b)(6) are governed by the well-established standard set forth in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). … Nor do they qualify as public records under the standard set forth by the Third Circuit. Id.

MILLER v. DOYLE & HOEFS LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2024

In order to qualify for reinstatement, Miller was required to pay the full balance owed, and she was also advised that there were a variety of payment options available to her. (Id. at 29-30.) … It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish diversity of citizenship, see Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 72 (1939); Quaker State Dyeing & Finishing Co., Inc. v.

Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates, P.C. v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company

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

In order to qualify for the Claim Price under the Complementary and Extender Network Services, Company will pay or arrange to pay provider in accordance with the terms of the contract between Supplier and provider … understands MultiPlan to be interpreting “access” to depend on whether Cigna chooses to pay the MPI Rate after ACLA has already performed the service, but neither the MPI Agreement nor administrative handbook clearly

J. AMBROGI FOOD DISTRIBUTION, INC. v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 929

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2023

There is also no evidence that the loss of two drivers on May 1, 2021 did—or even 4 JAF argues that concerted action need not involve more than two employees and that the actions of Whalin and Hammond therefore qualify … Article 5 clearly states that it is not a violation of the agreement if employees refuse to enter property or cross a picket line of an employer with whom the Union is involved in a labor dispute.” (Jt.

BISHOP v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2021

Under that analysis, Bishop and Scott must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Id. If they fail to establish a prima facie case, the City is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … What qualifies as an adverse employment action is broader than the statutory definition.

COHN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2020

Cohn alleges that with reasonable accommodations, she is qualified to participate in the Program. Before Ms. … “In order for the doctrine of estoppel to be applied in bar of the statute of limitations, fraud or concealment must necessarily be established.” Jd.

D'Angelo v. Vanguard Group, Inc., individually and d/b/a Vanguard

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

D’Angelo meets the first three elements of the prima facie case: he is over forty-years-old; Vanguard terminated his employment; and, he is qualified for the position for purposes of its motion. … Forbes that he was hired[,] the facts … clearly indicate that [Ms.] Talarico could not make this decision without the direct involvement of [Mr.]

O. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

In accordance with these similarities, in most circumstances, establishing the denial of a FAPE suffices to establish a § 504 claim. M.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., No. CV 20-2354, 2021 WL 1924083, at *12 (E.D. Pa. … Additionally, in most circumstances, establishing the denial of a FAPE suffices to establish a § 504 claim. M.D., No. CV 20-2354, 2021 WL 1924083, at *12.

IN RE ONIX GROUP, LLC DATA BREACH LITIGATION

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

Klinger, Esquire—are qualified to “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). … The fourth and fifth factors—risks of establishing liability and damages—also favor approval of the settlement.

LAIRD v. TERRA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2024

Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections last month “individuals with a known history of serious mental illness have a clearly established right not to be subjected to prolonged, indefinite solitary confinement … Laird to administrative custody); ECF 44-4 (establishing then-Superintendent Sorber denied Mr.

COKER v. DELBASO

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

prisoners, habeas relief is available to a petitioner only where a state court’s determination of the merits of his claims resulted in a decision that was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), the Supreme Court held that “[njegligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as ‘cause.’

POPOTE v. ESTOCK

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

A state court ruling is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases.” Williams v. … “Clearly established Federal law” has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as “the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.”

SORACE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2024

counsel— former Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Lawrence Stengel, and Richard Shenkan, an attorney specializing in class actions involving consumer disclosure notices—are qualified … With this initial presumption established, Rule 23(e)(2) and the Girsh factors guide the Court’s in-depth fairness analysis. See Girsh v.

POWERS v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

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

“A major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory … Although not clearly stated in the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert that Waddell held a position in “Backfill,” which Plaintiff claims is supervisory and has “the same authority as an Assistant Director

MCDERMID v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2023

The named Plaintiffs’ interests align with those of other class members, and class counsel are qualified, experienced and capable of litigating the class’s claims. … Second, the amount of fees sought was clearly outlined in the Notice for any class member to object and there were no objections to the requested fee award.

DOE A.F. v. LYFT, INC.

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

To qualify, the applicant must have one year of driving 1 The allegations described herein are taken from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 17.) … [S]uch language cannot, by itself, establish an assumption of a legal duty.”).