Case law

Wolff v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected Aetna’s assertion that variations in plan language meant that certain individuals would not qualify for the class. … “has not yet established the standard district courts should apply when deciding motions to stay proceedings pending Rule 23(f) appeals,” courts within this circuit routinely apply “the four-factor test outlined by the

Penn National Insurance v. HNI Corp.

482 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2007

Hearth and Home argues that Penn National has failed to establish a breach of any duty owed by Hearth and Home to Stoltzfus. … “A waiver of a contractual provision must be clearly established and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Myers, supra, 892 A.2d at 531 .

Ulshafer v. Kijakazi

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 2025

In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C” criteria. … Cir. 2011) (referencing 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”).

McIntosh v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2021

The Court noted further that it could not proceed on Plaintiff’s Bivens claims as pled because he had named the United States as the sole Defendant, and Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity … Furthermore, an inmate may not avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. See Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368.

Cerro Fabricated Prods. LLC v. Solanick

300 F. Supp. 3d 632 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2018

Ex. 4) "clearly indicates a strong experience in extrusion but limited exposure to the whole forging process." (Bucher Test., at 33). … Solanick", established a price, and submitted "the official RFQ to the customer." (Bucher Test., at 63; see also , PI. Ex. 7).

708-710 MARKET ST, LLC v. BOROUGH OF BERWICK and NICOLL OLIVER

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2025

On the contrary, the IPMC clearly contemplates inspections, as Section 104.2, adopted unamended by the Borough,86 Oct. 3, 2016) (Schwab, M.J.) report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:15-CV-02186, 2018 WL 2086074; Gardner … Brann Chief United States District Judge of whether the IPMC and the Ordinances qualify as a “policy” allowing for condemnation without reasonable

Mills v. Rogers

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2024

Plaintiff, in other words, was clearly on notice that his initial 14 Defendants raised an argument relating to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust any request for money damages (Doc. … [Plaintiffs’] action” and “[Plaintiffs] could present no additional facts that would militate against a finding of legislative immunity”).

Keister v. PPL Corp.

257 F. Supp. 3d 693 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

orders]”; and “[whether the party] presented a substantial legal issue.” 17 An award’s validity is further supported if the movant is, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 anticipates, the “prevailing party.” 18 Once it is established … Indeed, upon closer review of the law, whether a given attorney’s fee qualify for supplementation based on the Blum and SPIRG line of cases necessarily hinges on whether market forces in the particular practice area exert

Barney v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2021

(Please note that your medical restriction clearly says LOWER 3 TIERS recommended). Sgt. … retaliatory action, or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.

Shirley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2026

Therefore, Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts sufficient to establish that Blue Heron has riparian rights attached to Christman Lake. … But again, they do not clearly argue that the deprivation had not yet occurred.

Novingers, Inc. v. A.J.D. Construction Co., Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2021

Novinger’s cites the definition of “claim” used in the prime contract—and incorporated into the subcontract—to argue that the deduction constitutes a qualifying modification of contract terms. (See id. … Section 3.4 clearly applies to “deduct[ions],” while Section 3.3.2 clearly applies to affirmative “claims” for expenses undertaken by AJD.

Sayles v. Allstate Insurance Company

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

To qualify as a class member each putative plaintiff must: (1) be insured under Pennsylvania auto insurance policies issued by defendant which provided for medical benefits coverage but required or directed the insureds … However, like the defendant we find these cases to be clearly distinguishable from the instant case on several scores.

PAL v. SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GREENE

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2024

Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) (Jurors are not required to be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved”; “scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as … established law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Grill v. Aversa

908 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2012

Lew Grill is an Established and Recognized Expert Witness. Lewis J. … This status meant that the government had determined that Sage was deemed qualified to be the only source with whom they wished to contract for the services under the cooperative agreement, because of Sage’s expertise.

Rajendran v. Wormuth

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

Rajendran’s response, however, did not clearly follow the Secretary’s statement of material facts, so it was, at times, impossible to establish where Rajendran disputed the Secretary’s version of facts. … Qualified for the Position.

Benanti v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2021

Quoting his Complaint, Benanti asserts that he “clearly states ‘dozens of accounts’ were opened ‘under the plaintiff’s name.’” … If there were additional accounts at issue which were under Benanti’s name personally and not one of his companies, he would have likely used a qualifier when describing the accounts that were closed with a negative balance

Leppien

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

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 … Mar. 23, 2015) (‘To the extent that the claim asserts a denial of personal safety or a failure to protect, arising out of the alleged harassment, acts of verbal harassment and taunting alone cannot qualify as

Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2022

June 13, 2016)) (“It is well established that ‘only evidence which is admissible at trial may be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.’ … lower court fundamentally disagrees with the express language and findings made in an appellate mandate, it must dutifully comply even where compliance leads to results which the trial court finds absurd (which is clearly

Harrell v. Mayer

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023

Nor can an inmate avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained to him. Warman, 49 F. App’x at 368. … If “the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine factual issue, the district court should deny summary judgment even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” Id.

Hagan v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole and Probation

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2022

Hagan further alleges that Parole Board members are not qualified to make determinations regarding his physical or mental health conditions and how they are affected by COVID-19 precautions. … The record clearly reflects that the Parole Board based its parole determination on factors that it is statutorily required to consider in accordance with 61 Pa. C.S. § 6135. See McGinnis v.