Case law

Sturdivant v. Rivera-Ithier

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

The complaint is deficient for several reasons: the complaint is not signed by Sawchak; it violates the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not clearly set forth any claims on the part … To establish a claim under §1983, the plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a federally protected right and that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Woloszyn v.

Windom v. Rivello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … Based on these allegations, it appears that Trice’s actions were at worst negligent and do not qualify as deliberate indifference.

Eisenhuth v. Acpi Wood Products, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2023

Retaliation Theory A plaintiff bringing a prima facie FMLA retaliation claim must establish the following: (1) he invoked his right to FMLA-qualifying leave; (2) he suffered … Green,42 as follows: [A] plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Bair v. Shippensburg University

280 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2003

To the extent that the Statement defines racism as “the subordination of any person or group based upon race, color, creed or national origin[,]” and to the extent that speech that advocates subordination qualifies as racism … “In the absence of legitimate, countervailing concerns, the public interest clearly favors the protection of constitutional rights ...” Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 884 (3d Cir.1997).

Drenth v. Boockvar

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2020

As eligible voters who are legally blind, Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities. … Although an injunction would clearly impose regulatory and monetary costs on Defendants, those costs do not outweigh the irreparable injury Plaintiffs would suffer to their fundamental right to vote.

Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital

272 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2003

Because the Conditions of Reappointment constituted a contract, the decision to impose them qualifies as concerted action. … Thus, the Credentials Committee felt it necessary to clearly delineate to him the proper means of registering such complaints. The Hospital did not prevent Dr.

Rotex Global, LLC v. Gerard Daniel Worldwide, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2019

“Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking [to prevent] disclosure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” … “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not establish good cause. Cipollone v.

Ashley v. Bradley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2025

immunity. … Because the Court grants the motion to dismiss on other grounds, it will not address the qualified immunity argument.

Burton v. WETZEL

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

A state, however, may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit, and Congress may abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it unequivocally intends to do so and it acts pursuant to a valid grant … The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see 42 P.C.S.A. § 8521(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v.

United States v. Hammer

25 F. Supp. 2d 518 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1998

Wolfson is a highly qualified psychiatrist and is a Diplómate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology with Added Qualification in Forensic Psychiatry. 19. Dr. Mitchell is a highly qualified psychologist. 20. … Congress clearly identified the standard to be used in the weighing process, and by so doing excluded other standards, specifically the reasonable doubt standard.

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local Number 72 v. Giant Markets, Inc.

878 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1995

The use of the qualifying adverb “ordinarily” does suggest, however, that there may be circumstances when geographically separate workplaces may be aggregated to constitute a “single site of employment.” … Thus, the factual premise for Giant’s assertion has not yet been established.

Vernon L. Ealy, Jr. v. Franklin County, Pennsylvania, et al.

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

Only “persons” are subject to suit under Section 1983, and entities such as prisons, agencies, and private businesses do not qualify as “persons.” See Will v. Mich. … Yet | this business entity is clearly not a “person,” so Ealy has failed to assert a viable | Section 1983 claim against it.

Staats v. DeMatteis

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

In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach the Delaware Defendants’ remaining argument—i.e., that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 25 at 14–15.) … Dep’t of Corrs., 974 F.3d 431, 450 (3d Cir. 2020) (concluding that prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity where the officials had “fair warning” that the inmate, who had spent thirty-three

New Dana Perfumes Corp. v. the Disney Store, Inc.

131 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2001

To establish a prima facie case of trademark dilution, a plaintiff must establish that (1) it is the owner of a mark that qualifies as a famous mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)(1); (2) the defendant is making a commercial … Clearly, the use of the word Tinkerbell alone would appear to infringe plaintiffs' mark.

Global Tower, LLC v. Hamilton Township

897 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2012

novo. 1 The uncontested portions of the R & R, including Magistrate Judge Methvin’s recommendation to grant Global summary judgment as to the state law claim as unopposed, will be adopted as the recommendations are not clearly … A plaintiff carries the burden of establishing both prongs of its unreasonable discrimination claim.

Brown v. Borough of Harveys Lake

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

[Brown] the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” … Supp. 3d 296, 318 (D.NwJ. 2021) (‘The mere occurrence of several meetings between defendants does not establish a meeting of the minds for purposes of a conspiracy claim.”)

Mannix v. Mannix (In Re Mannix)

303 B.R. 587 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2003

Once established, the burden shifts to Debtor to establish that the debt should be discharged based on either subsection 523(a)(15)(A) or (B). See Shellem v. … The Court finds that Debtor has failed to establish an inability to pay the PNC obligation.

Zavalunov. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2020

“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … The BOP relied on exemption (b)(6), which exempts from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . ” (Id

Adlife Marketing & Communications Compay, INC v. Karns Prime and Fancy Food LTD

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

Finally, Defendant asserts that its defenses to this action are meritorious as more clearly defined in its motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 15.) … “To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized copying of original elements of the plaintiff’s work.”

Friend v. Shoemaker

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2020

Section 1983 provides that persons acting under color of state law may be held liable if they deprive an individual of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. … As to the denial of witnesses, Friend has not clearly identified the witnesses who would have testified or alleged that the testimony was denied in contravention of the prison officials’ discretion or violated the institution