Case law

METCALF v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.

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

determined that Plaintiffs could not establish damages in the form of lost profits, and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ request for lost profit damages.11 However, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs could establish damages … .44 Leibundgut further emphasized that, despite Merrill Lynch being a broker- dealer, “these OCC and Federal Reserve Regulations, particularly under the interagency guidance promulgated in 1994 . . . clearly

Loughney v. Correctional Care, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 2021

This is all more than enough to establish deliberate indifference, and Defendants’ motion should be denied. … The Medical Defendants argue that Defendant Zaloga is immune under 50 P.S. § 7114(a).

Taj K. Rogers v. Pocono Mountain School District, et al.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2026

On December 3, 2010, PMSD created a report (the “2010 Report”) which evaluated Rogers and concluded that he qualified for special education services due to a learning disability. … To establish willful misconduct, the plaintiff must present evidence regarding the specific intent of the municipal employee, and a reasonable jury must be able to conclude from that evidence that the employee intended

Quarles v. Youngkin

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 2024

DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 establishes the general rules of pleading. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8. … The amended complaint must more clearly state the basis for the claims lodged against each Defendant. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

Home Repair, LLC v. Church Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2022

“In distinguishing between proceedings which qualify as litigation and those that do not, the adversarial nature of the proceeding is characteristic of litigation.” … Rule 26(b)(3) establishes two categories of protection: fact work product and opinion work product.

Smith v. Mid-Valley School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2019

The Plaintiff bases her §1983 claims on violation of the rights afforded by the IDEA and otherwise does not clearly assert a freestanding constitutional claim. … To establish a claim pursuant to Section 504, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is “disabled” as defined by the statute; (2) he is “otherwise qualified” to participate in school activities; (3) the school or board

Sellers v. Monroe County Board of Prison Inspectors

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 15, 2025

There is clearly a lack of evidence to show that Mondelez did not make a good faith effort in accommodating Capps’ request... . … To establish her racial discrimination claims under the pretext theory, Plaintiff must show that “(1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain; (3)

Ray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 2019

Ray does not make any allegations that would allow the Court to infer that CCS established or maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom responsible for violating his rights. … Ray decides to file an amended complaint in this action, he must clearly label it, on the face of the document, “Amended Complaint.”

Robinson v. Bureau of Health Care Services

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2021

It is well established that the filing of a lawsuit and/or administrative grievances is constitutionally protected conduct. … Only “persons” are amenable to suit under § 1983, and entities such as state prisons or prison departments do not qualify as “persons.” Will v.

Conklin v. Hawbaker Engineering

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2019

Defendants’ failure to clearly define Conklin’s job responsibilities, among other issues discussed more fully below, preclude the entry of summary judgment. A. … unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.32 To establish a prima facie case, Conklin must demonstrate that (1) she has a “disability” within

Basemore v. Voorstad

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2024

Here, Plaintiff has clearly alleged that she was under the care of multiple medical professionals during the period at issue. … She must clearly label the document as a second amended complaint and use the docket number assigned to this case.

Dockery v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2025

To establish a claim under Section 1983, two criteria must be met. First, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. … After review of Dockery’s complaint, there are no allegations indicating that Defendant JP Morgan Chase qualifies as a state actor for the purposes of Section 1983.

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2025

The Officer Defendants subsequently filed notices of appeal limited to the issue of whether they were entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. Nos. 112, 114, 118, 119.) … However, the Third Circuit reversed the Court’s denial of qualified immunity as to the claim of failure to intervene. (Doc. No. 122); see Thomas, 88 F.4th at 278.

Angstadt Ex Rel. Angstadt v. MIDD-WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT

286 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2003

However, many courts that have considered the question have found that there is no clearly established right to compete or participate in extracurricular activities. See Davenport v. … Further, Megan’s status as a cyber charter school student does not qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. See Janicki v. Elizabeth Forward Sch.

Bax v. Clark

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2021

To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity … The RA provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of,

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

290 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2003

Thus, to establish anticipation by prior art, the challenging party must establish that each and every descriptive element and limitation contained in the prior art is also contained, either expressly or inherently, in the … To qualify for an award of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287 , the patentee must first provide to the alleged infringer either constructive notice of the infringement, through a “patented” mark on the infringed product itself

Terrero-Terrero

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2026

The INS therefore established the Institutional Hearing Program.”) (citations omitted). … The record in this case clearly establishes that Petitioner’s Unit Team, in its February 2026 review, gave him individualized consideration consistent with the five factors of Section 3621(b). (Doc. 1-9.)

Freeman v. United States Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2023

Clearly, he cannot meet this burden; to the contrary, his argument is premised upon the acknowledgement that he did not submit his claim to the appropriate federal agency. 28 U.S.C. 2401(b); see also 28 C.F.R. § … Moreover, even if McCarthy, Brighton, and Fox were properly served, they would be immune from suit on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity.

Banks

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2026

The new policy broadly permits foods from any “licensed food establishment,” which can include any “retail food facility” or “commercial food establishment” that is able to 8 For example, a meal … Because summary judgment is granted to the defendants, the Court need not address their arguments regarding administrative remedies, personal involvement, qualified immunity, and the availability of compensatory

Windom v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2022

Windom has not established that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health or safety. He alleges he was evacuated to safety but did not like the route of the evacuation. … The Third Circuit has clearly stated that “agency interpretive guidelines ‘do not rise to the level of a regulation and do not have the effect of law.’ ” Mercy Catholic Med.