Case law

Wallace ex rel. Wallace v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

984 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2013

The CMO clearly outlined the procedures that were to be followed when filing Motions to Substitute. … Regardless, the cumulative and consistent tardiness of Attorney Osborn clearly establishes a history of dilatoriness that weighs in favor of dismissal.

Donohoe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.

157 F.R.D. 238 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 1994

Alan Cantor is qualified to testify as an expert on the subjects of: the testing of automobile seat belts for safety and product defects; forensic evidence to be gleaned from the examination of seat belts taken from vehicles … The videotape clearly demonstrates that they took the mechanism apart and nothing more. No destructive testing was performed on it, and no alterations were made to any part of it.

PRYOR v. BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2025

“Granting a 12(c) motion results in a determination on the merits at an early stage in the litigation,” and thus, the movant is required “‘to clearly establish [ ] that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and … State agencies, which are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, are not included. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 n.51 (“Our holding . . .

Wood v. Cavello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2020

by Congressional abrogation or by waiver, Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C … This testimony, coupled with the videotape evidence, clearly demonstrates that Civiello resorted to force to effect compliance only after his other method of control, the issuance of several direct orders to close the wicket

Calloway v. Bauman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 2022

However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity, established by the Eleventh Amendment, protects states, such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from suits by citizens. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. … Congress has not abrogated the immunity regarding 10 Calloway’s claims, nor has Pennsylvania waived this grant of immunity. See 42 PA. C.S.A. § 8521(b).

Extendicare Health Services, Inc. v. District 1199p, Service Employees International Union

532 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2006

Ann. § 1007. 3 The General Assembly also authorized DPW to adopt regulations establishing minimum standards to qualify for such licenses. Id. § 1021. … Poth could have qualified for a waiver of those regulations.

Stroud v. USP-Lewisburg

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2022

Here, Stroud is clearly presenting a new context with his state-created danger claim. … No. 12- 2 The Court does not address at this juncture whether “sex offenders” qualify as a class who can seek Section 1985(3) protection.

Eureka Paper Box Company v. Wbma, Inc., Voluntary Emp. B. Tr.

767 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 1991

Plaintiffs argue that they qualify as named fiduciaries and that this status confers standing. … An employer with the authority to alter the terms of the plan and to administer the trust may qualify as a fiduciary. United States Steel Corp. v.

Tipton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2026

That is, assuming the alleged presence of mice and insects qualifies as a sufficiently serious deprivation (alone or in combination with the other conditions alleged), Tipton’s allegations plainly demonstrate that prison … this immunity if they choose, but Pennsylvania has explicitly not waived its immunity with respect to claims brought under Section 1983.62 There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment’s bar to private suits against

Daniels v. Damiter

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2024

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … This case is clearly barred by Heck.

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

658 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2009

His methods are testable, he discloses the degree of potential measurement error, and he is unquestionably qualified. … In short, the preponderance of proof establishes both the reliability and relevance of Rahn’s testimony.

Hook v. Pike County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2024

As to the potential application of qualified immunity, although the Court acknowledges its duty to “resolv[e] immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Pearson v. … [njor will Defendant{s] [...] be forced to undergo a trial or waste extensive time and resources when []he ultimately may be 26 entitled to qualified immunity.” /d.

Wilson v. Silverio

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2022

Accordingly, the Court will deem admitted the facts in Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement unless they are clearly contradicted by the record. … They also argue that Wilson has failed to identify evidence that Defendants used unreasonable force and that, even if he had proffered such evidence, Defendants’ conduct is shielded by qualified immunity.

Boudwin v. Great Bend Township

921 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1996

established rights secured to the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and by the Fourteenth Amendment. … The case management plan order established February 29, 1996 as the date lor completion of discovery.

Meyer v. Havens

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2023

Therefore, he is immune from Section 1983 liability and Plaintiffs’ second claim fails as a matter of law. D. … Cir. 2003) (officers who took part in execution of search warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not draft the warrant and relied on local procedures); Giacalone v. Ne. Pa. Ins.

Wallace v. Powell

301 F.R.D. 144 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2014

Parent Settlement Class Benefits The Allocation Plan also provides that each qualifying Parent Settlement Class Member (“Parent”) will receive settlement payment as follows: Each qualifying Parent Settlement Class Member … And, finally, the procedure for processing individual claims under the Settlement is fair and reasonable, and the procedure has been explained clearly in forms available to Settlement Class Members. *164 10.

Docal v. Bennsinger

543 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1981

unless the information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language. … In order to qualify as an exempted statute under (b)(3) the provision in question must “require that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue,” or be one that “establishes

York Excavating v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

834 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1993

To recover from Wausau, York must establish entitlement to payment under the terms of the payment bond. … Nor does a right of control or supervision over York establish the existence of a contractual obligation.

Conway v. Rivello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2025

However, the 14 doctrine of sovereign immunity, established by the Eleventh Amendment, protects states, such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from suits by citizens. … Congress has not abrogated the immunity regarding Conway’s claims, nor has Pennsylvania waived this grant of immunity. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8521(b).

B. W. v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2024

Such a failure is clearly unreasonable and indicative of deliberate indifference. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims to the extent they caused sexual abuse fall within Section 8542(b)(9)’s sovereign immunity exception and Defendants cannot claim immunity