Case law

Edwards v. Rivello

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2023

Owens Corning, 885 F.3d 186, 192 (3d Cir. 2018) (“The party seeking certification bears the burden of establishing each element of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence”). … In this regard, Edwards clearly intends to personally direct this class action. (See Doc. 4).

Lingenfelter v. Liptak

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2020

1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915(A) give the court the authority to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … If Lingenfelter decides to file an amended complaint, he must clearly label the document “Amended Complaint.”

Smart v. Geisinger Health

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

termination].”82 Importantly, the shifting burden concerns only the evidentiary burden of production; “[the plaintiff] has the ultimate burden of persuasion at all times.”83 Specifically, the employer must “clearly … Whether Smart Was Qualified for Her Former Position Geisinger next argues that Smart was not qualified for her old position.118 In the context of the ADA, a “qualified individual” is one “who, with or without

Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2025

However, Defendants have argued that the witnesses may be called to establish a hearsay exception and the statements may be used for other purposes such as impeachment or refreshing a recollection. … Additionally, they argue that there is no proposed witness to authenticate the blueprints and they qualify as hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Id.)

Lease v. Fishel

712 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2010

Ignoring the fact that these allegedly under-qualified lawyers managed to secure the dismissal of a frivolous complaint that Mr. … Yet, while the causes of this misconduct remain elusive, the consequences of these actions are both clear, and clearly harmful, to the people Mr.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Boockvar

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2019

At this stage of the litigation, defendants have not shown that INS Indicators categorically do not qualify as identifying information. Citizenship information is not the only information implicated here. … The Commonwealth has not waived sovereign immunity. See PA. CONST. art. I, § 11; 42 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 102, 8521, 8522. IV.

Gallo v. John Powell Chevrolet, Inc.

765 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 1991

The affidavit does not have sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to qualify as a Rule 804(b)(5) exception. … The issues are clearly not identical, and collateral estoppel therefore does not apply. See generally: Johnson v.

Tolerico v. Home Depot

205 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2002

Home Depot was clearly unaware of the existence of the April 1, 1998 Charge Questionnaire and the other documents pertinent to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. … Burns asserts that the April 1, 1998 Charge Questionnaire qualifies as a charge of employment discrimination, an assertion with which Home Depot does not take issue. Burns further asserts that Atty.

Gutierrez v. Smith

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

In applying it, this Court’s first task is to ascertain what law falls within the scope of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1). … For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

Beard v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2024

Based on the extreme lateness of the extension request and Beard’s failure to establish good cause, the court denied the motion on December 16, 2021. (Doc. 219.) … Beard asserts that because she has clearly shown that the “unwillingness exception” to the forum rate rule applies in this case, Attorney Rubb should be reimbursed for his travel time and expenses.

In Re TMI Litigation Consolidated Proceedings

927 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 1996

To establish that each Plaintiff received a cancer inducing dose of radiation, Plaintiffs must first establish that quantities of radionuclides sufficient to deliver that dose were released from TMI during the accident. … The signs and symptoms result from radiation damage to the bone marrow, lymphatic organs, and immune response.

Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America

488 F. Supp. 1208 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 1980

The heart of this provision is § 1104(a)(1)(B), which establishes a “prudent man” standard. … The loss resulted in the Fund’s inability to maintain the established pension payments.

Healthpro Therapy Services, LLC v. Ridgeview Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center LLC

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

A HealthPRO therapist would 2 The RUG is a classification system established by the state and federal government to put a resident into a particular group. (Tr. I at 111.) … Although Ridgeview was clearly displeased with the changes in HealthPRO staffing, Ridgeview has failed to demonstrate that the temporary staffing resulted in a breach of HealthPRO’s duty under the Agreement.

Lynch v. Ducasse

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2023

Nevertheless, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Tartaglione, 228 F. Supp. 3d at 406. … Further, to the extent that a particular medical document contains test reports or diagnostic statements, interpretation of these documents requires the testimony of a qualified person. 2 Of note, the Court at this

Lee v. Scranton School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2024

of the amended complaint alleges that Rucker qualifies as an official policymaker to establish liability against the Scranton School District pursuant to Monell v. New York City Dept. … § 1343(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction of any action commenced to redress the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law providing for the equal rights of citizens.

Rana

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2026

Pa. 1987) (holding 18 U.S.C. § 4042 establishes “ordinary diligence” standard of care for prisoner negligence suits under the FTCA). … Ct. 1985) (“The law clearly states . . . that [a defendant] may be held liable only for those risks a person in his position could reasonably have foreseen.”); R.W. v. Manzek, 838 A.2d 801, 808 (Pa. Super.

Johnson, Sr. v. USP-Canaan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2022

According to Plaintiff, this was “clearly systematic racism by these federal actor’s [sic] at USP Canaan[.]” (Id.) … To avoid dismissal under Rule 6 Plaintiff’s claims are not clearly laid out in his amended complaint.

Jones v. Edem

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

Territory or the District of Columbia, 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 … The amended complaint clearly alleges that Hoffner and Palerino were the only Defendants personally involved in the alleged assault on October 2, 2018, so I will further limit my analysis to whether Defendants were personally

Bodle v. Smith

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

39 The clearly established law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims is Strickland. … established law.’”

Troublefield v. City of Harrisburg, Bureau of Police

789 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 1992

Jan. 9,1991) (court noted that “the threshold issue is whether a seizure has occurred_ [Allegations that [defendant] acted recklessly or willfully fall short of establishing the intentional conduct required under Brower”) … Plaintiff’s complaint clearly outlines an injury incurred while he was being arrested. *167 Accordingly, plaintiff has stated no claim under the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause. Accord Glasco v.