Case law

SERVIS ONE, INC. v. OKS GROUP INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2021

In fact, according to Defendants, the fraud claim is “premised and dependent” on otherwise protected communications because Plaintiffs are unable to establish it without establishing why their attorneys made, and Plaintiffs … However, the attorney-client privilege applies to all qualifying communications made “for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client,” not strictly litigation advice.

ZAFTR INC. v. LAWRENCE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2023

“Rather, the common law clearly distinguishes between concealment and nondisclosure. … party to a business transaction is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose to the other before the transaction is consummated . . . facts basic to 35 Zaftr does not specify which of the misrepresentations qualify

JACKSON v. DEPAUL HEALTH SYSTEM

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

Ratner is qualified to testify as an expert on healthcare regulation compliance due to his experience and credentials in healthcare regulation compliance. … There is a “proverbial line in the sand for purposes of determining when clearly substandard services become ‘worthless.’” 18 United States v.

KAO v. CARDCONNECT CORP.

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

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. … The settlement agreement also establishes an effective method of distributing relief to the settlement class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(C)(ii).

FORD v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

While the parties agree that Plaintiff’s situation is similar to the fact pattern in Donovan, and its holding would resolve the question of whether Progressive were liable where the facts clearly mirror those in Donovan … Rule 23(a)(1): Numerosity Is Not Satisfied Defendant argues that the realistic number of plaintiffs who could qualify as class members is 8, including Plaintiff. (See Doc.

Cardionet, LLC v. Scottcare Corp.

388 F. Supp. 3d 442 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2019

The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework through which courts assess patent eligibility under § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., 573 U.S. 208 , 134 S. … The Massachusetts District Court conducted its Alice analysis and clearly articulated its basis for concluding that claims 1, 2, 10, and 22 of the '207 Patent are patent-ineligible because "Plaintiffs' asserted claims are

In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig.

338 F. Supp. 3d 404 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2018

that each Defendant raised its 'effective' pravastatin prices at the same time." 249 Pravastatin Defendants concede that "allegations of sequential (as opposed to simultaneous) price increases may in some circumstances qualify … EPPs and IRPs contend that they have sufficiently alleged a basis for antitrust standing because they have clearly alleged causation - they pay supracompetitive prices because Defendants conspired to fix the prices of the

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

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2022

Bohler also clearly stated that extrinsic evidence about “the parties’ expectations” or “a party’s beliefs about the general ramifications of the contract” cannot establish a latent ambiguity. Id. … These types of information clearly fall within the scope of the contracts.

GLOBUS MEDICAL INC. v. SHARP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2022

In contrast, Sharp’s MMGDAs each established a percentage of commission that Sharp would receive. (Compl. Ex. G at 3; Compl. Ex. H.) … Here, the October 2021 FSIAA clearly defines MMGD payments as advances against “current . . . income.” (Compl. Ex. I.)

DONOFRIO v. IKEA US RETAIL, LLC

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

As information stored in email accounts qualifies as ESI, Rule 37(e) applies and is the exclusive remedy for spoliation of ESI. … The record as a whole clearly establishes a “history of dilatoriness” on IKEA’s part.

PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. COMCAST CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2025

Claim constructions established by the Federal Circuit are law of the case on remand. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 383 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. … Promptu maintained the expert’s assertion was inaccurate and showed he lacked the experience necessary to qualify as a person of ordinarily skill in the art, noting “[t]here were no ‘black box’ options available” in the

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DeJOY

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

Summary judgment will be granted when “the movant establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” West v. … Plaintiffs have failed to point to record evidence linking any of those initiatives to the mail delays that qualify as redressable injuries.

BROWN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

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

Nos. 32–33), the Court extended the deadlines by a 4 This Court’s Policies and Procedures clearly delineate the proper procedure for requesting an extension. … As such, she cannot establish a free speech retaliation claim based on those statements.

SAVAGE v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY - OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2022

“First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999). … Instead, they argue that even if the five family members qualified for tuition remission, a finding that they would have taken advantage of those benefits is too speculative to support a damages award. (Doc.

CARPENTER v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED

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

Pennsylvania courts apply a well established multi-factor test to determine whether a plaintiff is an employee or independent contractor, looking to “the control of the manner that work is to be done; responsibility for … These minor limitations are consistent with the rights of anyone who engages an independent contractor to make sure the contractor is qualified to perform the job and solvent enough to see the work through, and they do

LVL CO. LLC v. ATIYEH

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2020

To qualify as a bona fide purchaser, Mrs. Atiyeh must have: (1) paid valuable consideration for the property she obtained from Mr. … of said covenant and then, defiantly, in her name, establish a like business.

NORTH PENN TOWNS, LP v. CONCERT GOLF PARTNERS, LLC

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

Next, we dismissed the antitrust claims because NPT failed to establish an unreasonable restraint of trade. (Id. at 35–47.) … See In re Rumsey Land Co., LLC, 944 F.3d at 1273 n.9 (“Although contractual partners qualify as parties to a business transaction, a contractual relationship is not required under § 551(2)(b).”); Church Mut. Ins.

DWYER v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2021

Revell is not qualified to opine on Plaintiff’s Meniere’s prognosis, and I do not rely on her assessments of that condition in coming to my conclusion. But Dr. … Revell is qualified to opine regarding the toll exacted by Meniere’s disease on Plaintiff against the background of Plaintiff’s physical challenges.

TOMASZEWSKI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

that having “lower pendings [] gives you more time to work them” (id. at 45:3- 4) and explained that he would simply work overtime to ensure that the work was getting done (even though as a salaried employee he did not qualify … If the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, then that party must establish the existence of each element on which it bears the burden.

TOMASZEWSKI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

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

that having “lower pendings [] gives you more time to work them” (id. at 45:3- 4) and explained that he would simply work overtime to ensure that the work was getting done (even though as a salaried employee he did not qualify … If the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, then that party must establish the existence of each element on which it bears the burden.