Case law

Anderson v. Kaufman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2021

Finally, a third alternative form of relief is available to Anderson via Governor Wolf’s temporary program to reprieve sentences of incarceration for those inmates who meet established criteria. … Whether Anderson would qualify for such a reprieve is unknown.

Shelton v. Gure

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2021

The logbook and test-driving results are clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims because these documents could show whether Defendants were or were not justified in hiring and entrusting their vehicle to Gure, as well as … Lacey is permitted to conclude that YaYa failed to qualify Gure as required by FMCSR 391, however it would be speculative and would invite unfair prejudice for Lacey to state that Gure was generally not a qualified driver

ALBERT E. MARTINEZ v. JASON BERFIELD, et al.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2026

Defendants argue that expert testimony would be necessary to establish such a causal connection, and note that plaintiff has not produced an expert report or otherwise indicated an intention to produce expert testimony … A lay witness may only offer opinion testimony if it is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based

Stoud v. Susquehanna County

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2020

On a motion in limine, evidence should only be excluded “when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. … Qualifications In order for a witness to be qualified as an expert, “he must first be qualified by virtue of specialized expertise.” Elcock, 233 F.3d at 741.

Sloat v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Office of Information Technology

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2021

We similarly conclude that Sloat was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job. … The standard for ADA retaliation claims is well established in the Third Circuit: To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, a plaintiff

Doe v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2021

Commonwealth defendants move to dismiss these claims based on sovereign immunity, (see Doc. 43 at 5-7), and Doe concedes sovereign immunity applies to bar his state-law claims in this court, (see Doc. 46-3 at 16). … Congress did not establish an express statute of limitations within the ACA, and because the statute is so new, few 2 See also Doe v.

Muhammad

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 1, 2026

Knowledge of an injury, actual or otherwise, is established through reference to “when the wrongful act or omission results in damages.” Dique v. N.J. … Pa. 2026) (finding no plausible or particular allegations that towing company qualified as a state actor when a state trooper directed it to tow a vehicle), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL

Johnson v. Preston

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2023

from such relief.”17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws

Martinez v. Berfield

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2024

Furthermore, even if the Fourth Amendment does protect such a right, defendant Fultz would be entitled to qualified immunity from Martinez’s claim because that right was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third … “Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not do so alone. . . .” Id. at 304.

United States v. Dodd

978 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2013

The Government identified twelve entities that claim they qualify as victims and are owed restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), due to Defendant’s actions related to the offenses … Defendant presented evidence tending to establish that foreign steel was used in the CVCC project (see Def.

Alford v. Penchishen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2021

Harris, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.” Yang v. … When seeking to impose liability due to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, the appropriate remedy is a civil rights action. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 540.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

No particular background or credentials are necessary to establish the requisite specialized knowledge, as “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert.” See In re Paoli R.R. … It clearly appeared to be the point of origin and I found nothing on the balcony to indicate what had occurred to have caused the fire.” (Id. at 72.) Mr.

Peticca

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026

Thus, to succeed on her retaliation claim, Peticca must establish that “(1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related … (Doc. 26, p. 19 (“Peticca also clearly identified ‘pretextual reasons’ for her termination . . .

Roche v. SCI-Mahanoy RHU

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2024

the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A\(b) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual

Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

18 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 1955

Tompkins, supra, and its progeny, 7 defendant argues that whether or not an amendment should be allowed must be determined by standards established by the law of Pennsylvania. 8 One possible answer is that Rule 15 with its … Where local law qualifies or abridges it, the federal court must follow suit.” And see Myers v. Slotkin, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 13 F.R.D. 191 . . Accord: See and cf.

Ortiz v. Conners

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2024

In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach Defendants’ alternative arguments that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Bivens’ claim or that Plaintiff failed to administratively … In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach Defendants’ alternative arguments that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Bivens’ claim or that Plaintiff failed to administratively

Wolff v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

, the Court rejected Aetna’s assertion that variations in plan language meant that certain individuals would not qualify for the class. … Clearly then, despite an erroneous placement of the bullet points in that portion of the definition of “Other Income Benefits,” the above language is linked only to workers’ compensation type laws and does not apply

Lassegue v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2022

“Because the Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act’s established procedures have been strictly construed.” Livera v. … The Court has already established that Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling with respect to his FTCA claim.

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

106 F. Supp. 3d 506 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2015

At trial, Arlington established that it was entitled to lost profits damages for sales of the Single Connectors. … Whether a matter sought to be precluded was actually litigated "depends on the second court’s concluding that the issue in dispute was clearly resolved by the first tribunal.” United Access Techs., LLC v.

Gonzalez v. Doe 1

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2020

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 of color of state law. … The Court seems to imply, without specifically addressing, that such an action is proper but then proceeds to a qualified immunity analysis. Id.