Case law

Meeks-Owens v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B.

557 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2008

Further, although Indymae knew that Plaintiff qualified only for a sub-prime mortgage, it “engaged in a scheme to recruit mortgage business from first-time home buyers and minorities by telling these customers that they are … “[J]udgment will not be granted ‘unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Jablonski v. Pan Am.

Vargas v. Pierre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2024

Personal Involvement It is well established that, in Section 1983 actions, liability cannot be “predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior.” … § 8522(a), (b)(3) (waiving state statutory sovereign immunity for negligent acts related to the “care custody or control of personal property in the possession or control of Commonwealth parties”); Snead v.

Snead v. Steif

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2021

The request must be clearly marked “Sensitive” and include a written explanation for why it was submitted at the institutional level. (Id.) … Summary judgment should be granted where a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial.”

Smith v. Service Employees International Union, Local 668

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2021

Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Membership Application clearly reflects her voluntary and knowing decision to join Local 668. … She further argues that the AWP is not clearly set out by the Application’s terms. The Court sees no ambiguity.

Doe 1 v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

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

As the policy language clearly states that “bodily injury” includes any “disease” caused by an automobile accident, we must give effect to the language of the contract. … Rather, Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by an event so unexpected, undesigned and fortuitous as to qualify as accidental within the terms of the policy.

Barone v. Idexcel, Inc.

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

Plaintiff attempted to ignore Donahue and Giancola’s behavior and “clearly show[ed] his discomfort through his body language and clear discomfort with their comments/conduct, but their inappropriate and disgusting conduct … Sept. 1, 2020), and it is generally understood that “[a] client of a temporary employment agency typically qualifies as an employer of the temporary worker during the job assignment” for Title VII purposes.

Garcia v. AMTC-1, Inc.

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

| Plaintiff also alleges that, pursuant to federal and state laws, she qualifies as an employee of the defendants. … The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly | understand that there is expectation of compensation.

Stultz v. Barkley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2019

The clearly established Federal law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States is as follows: … 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.

Mansfield Area Citizens Group v. United States

413 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 1976

The Pennsylvania Department of Health has not established criteria for body contact recreation in acid water. (Uncontested) 91. … An injunction must be specifically and clearly drawn so that the parties to whom it speaks may know precisely what is expected of them. Failure to comply is grounds for contempt.

Biddiscombe v. Service Employees International Union, Local 668

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2021

Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Membership Application clearly reflects her voluntary and knowing decision to join Local 668. … She further argues that the AWP is not clearly set out by the Application’s terms. The Court sees no ambiguity.

Barlow v. Service Employees International Union, Local 668

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2021

Furthermore, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Membership Application clearly reflects his voluntary and knowing decision to join Local 668. … He further argues that the AWP is not clearly set out by the Application’s terms. The Court sees no ambiguity.

Strickler v. Wellspan Health Care Campus Condominium Association

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023

He further stated that while Strickler would characterize McGuire’s actions as harassment, the actions McGuire was taking, in his view, “were very clearly . . . normal employee-manager interactions.” … It is undisputed that Strickler’s bipolar disorder qualifies as a disability under the ADA.

Walsh v. Wicare Home Care Agency, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2024

regulation do not clearly explain when an entity should be exempted from the FLSA’s coverage. (Doc. No. 75 at 9–18.) … Relevant here, the employer bears the burden of proving that they qualify for a FLSA exemption. See Martin v. Cooper Elec.

Thomas v. Schaeffer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2025

aside the particular characteristics of the Thomases’ property and the particular circumstances of the two incidents in which WCO Moon entered onto and searched their property, the challenged statute clearly … It is well established that the Fourth Amendment is implicated when a search involves an intrusion into the human body, such as the of their duties.”).

Bone v. Ebbert

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

Plaintiff’s complaint demonstrates his disagreement with the type of treatment rendered, specifically, his disagreement with the medical professionals at USP-Lewisburg with respect to his need for medications, as the record clearly … reveals that his medical encounters have clearly been efforts to seek medication without a medically necessary foundation.

Malakoski v. Garland

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2025

Title VII Retaliation To establish a prima face case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) she engaged in activity protected by … Second, regarding his non-selection for a lieutenant position at USP Lewisburg, Malakoski admitted that the selected candidates were more qualified than him. Further, Capt.

Preski v. Shaprio

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

Pa. 2019) (evaluating substantive arguments of habeas petition for whether they would qualify the petition for limitations tolling). A. … Magistrate Judge Carlson also noted that Preski has not established any extraordinary circumstances as to why he could not file his Petition earlier. (Id.).

Holland v. Baltazar

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

§ 780-113(a)(30).43 This plainly qualifies as a “conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State.”44 Because Stewart had a prior qualifying offense, her possession … Therefore, the evidence does not establish that Holland is actually innocent of his § 924(c) conviction.

Oceguera v. Albence

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2020

STANDARD OF REVIEW It is well-established that “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely … While on the waiting list, applicants receive “deferred action or parole” protecting them from removal, and the applicant and qualifying family members may receive work authorization. Id.

McPherson v. County of Dauphin

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2020

In order 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 … The Third Circuit has not addressed this distinction; however, other circuit courts of appeals have clearly held that denial of access to prescription medications is actionable under the ADA. See Kiman v. N.H.