Case law

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

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

misleading statements as part of marketing pitches to prescribers, and that Gilead specifically instructed its sales representatives in how a fibrosis test could be manipulated to make a patient appear more likely to qualify … Conspiracy between Premier and Others Although the TAC does not clearly allege an FCA conspiracy between Gilead and Premier, the TAC plainly alleges that Premier engaged in two broad conspiracies

JANNUZZIO v. DANBY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2022

In the Third Circuit, determining whether representation is adequate under Rule 23.1 “depends on two factors:” (1) whether the plaintiff’s attorney is “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed … In sum, this Court finds that Jannuzzio and Nix are not automatically entitled to bring a derivative suit on behalf of Greenville merely because they are its only minority shareholders, and are thus, not immune from this

DOE v. MANOR COLLEGE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2020

Whether Manor College’s actions were clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances. The record reflects Manor College failed to make accommodations for Ms. … To that end, however, “not every complaint about unfair practices or perceived slights qualify as ‘protected activity.’” Isler v. Keystone Sch. Dist., No. 07-1335, 2008 WL 3540603, at *9 (W.D. Pa.

TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION FUND v. Maple Management LLC d/b/a RAE Lifts

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

Because Rae Lifts challenges its clearly stated obligation to the 165-hour rule in the collective bargaining agreement, any defense must fall within the three defenses recognized. … Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Inc., 989 F.2d 132, 138 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating multiemployer funds are immune from many contract defenses that would bar unions from enforcing a collective bargaining agreement, including fraud-in-the-inducement

TALLEY v. CLARK

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2023

They also invoke qualified and sovereign immunity. We conclude that the undisputed facts prove that Talley did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. … To establish a claim under the ADA and RA, a plaintiff must show “that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’ [and] that he was excluded from a service, program, or activity of a public entity . . .

PELLETIER v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 2021

Park/BLA clearly failed to ascertain the exact timing of Park’s acquisition and misrepresented that lack of knowledge as if it were a certainty. … Stengel were necessary to establish the appropriate leadership in this case, given the very unusual set of circumstances discussed above. Knowing Mr.

FRANKENFIELD v. SALISBURY TOWNSHIP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2020

App’x 173 (3d Cir. 2013), the Court advised that: USERRA, by its own terms, establishes a two-step burden-shifting framework by which to analyze such claims. … He hasn’t been qualified – THE COURT: Overruled. MR. DURKIN: -- an expert in public policy. THE COURT: Overruled.

FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. v. Holder

729 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2010

As the Court recently summarized, We have held that a statute which proscribes the distribution of all child pornography, even material that does not qualify as obscenity, does not on its face violate the First Amendment. … Clearly, the ... books and papers which the defendant seeks to suppress, if presently in his possession, would have to be released to the proper authorities.

ATS TREE SERVICES, LLC v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2024

For example, in 1971, when the FTC promulgated its “Octane Rule,” the rule declared it “an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice” for refiners to fail “to disclose clearly . . . … (A) arbitrary, capricious,15 an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

PREITZ v. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2023

When a pilot crossed the five-year mark, “[h]e [went] into some type of area that we really [hadn’t] defined clearly in the contract”—a “limbo land.” (Id. at 99-100.) … Although Plaintiff and Allied agree that a pilot without an FAA medical certificate was not “qualified to fly for American Airlines” and that American Airlines would have required such a pilot to take leave, Allied does

CHESTNUT STREET CONSOLIDATED, LLC v. DAWARA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2022

However, the conversion of property owned by one debtor-spouse to the other spouse does not immunize the property from the PUVTA. Id.; see Knoll v. … Thus, the Incarcerated Defendants were clearly aware that would face substantial liability as a result of their actions.

Kaplan

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2026

In assessing adequacy, the Court determines whether plaintiff’s counsel is “qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation[.]” New Directions Treatment Servs. v. … The threshold for establishing commonality is low. Newton, 259 F.3d at 182.

International ProcessPlants and Equipment Corp. v. Harris

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2025

Rotondo’s Defense and its Merit “[A] defendant has established a meritorious defense when its ‘allegations, if established at trial, would constitute a complete defense.’” … Moreover, conversion seems to clearly fall within the scope of the breach of contract claims that were dealt with at arbitration.

KINNEY v. COUNTY OF BERKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2023

Kinney argues “[t]he facts stated in the [a]mended [c]omplaint clearly meet the pleading standard of the elements of a prison suicide case as set forth in Colburn.” Id. at 11. … The Supreme Court has held “that a municipality is immune from punitive 39 damages under” § 1983. City of Newport v.

COYNE v. HOLY FAMILY APARTMENTS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2020

Plaintiff’s FHAA claim clearly aligns with a theory of discrimination for failure to accommodate, yet as averred, it fails to plausibly state such a claim. … Plaintiff has not pled facts that establish duty, breach, proximate cause, or damages.

KELLY v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a ON-SITE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2020

“Whether adequacy has been satisfied ‘depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiff’s attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests … They do not offer any evidence to suggest that every file contains public records, even though it is their burden to establish predominance.

PELLEGRINO v. EPIC GAMES, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2020

Complaint that Defendant did not seek his permission before using his likeness . . . , Plaintiff clearly did not confer any benefit upon Defendant.”). … These allegations establish that the Signature Move is the creative idea underlying Epic’s tangible good, the Phone It In emote.

BLACKMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2022

She clearly did not have their opinions, as her own report recites that she has no medical opinions about the individual’s abilities and limitations that are more restrictive than her findings. R. 103. … It is well established that sporadic or transitory activity does not disprove disability”); Kangas v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 775, 778 (3d Cir. 1987); Fargnoli v.

CHAND v. MERCK & CO., INC.

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

Chand was merely an applicant for an “open job,” which clearly informed her that individuals requiring sponsorship could not be hired. … Chand that she was eligible and qualified to work for the company during her initial interviews on January 30, 2018, during her post-interview calls,’ “when Merck offered her job,’ and in post-offer communications.”

MATARAZZO v. CSENGE ADVISORY GROUP, LLC

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2020

Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) “Exclusivity exists where ‘forum selection clauses state or clearly indicate that any litigation must or shall be initiated”). … This preference is established beyond peradventure because that is where Defendant has sued Plaintiff.