Case law

United States of America v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2026

under the FHA; (3) the complaint fails to allege that Defendants are “persons” as defined by the FHA or that Defendants took any action prohibited by the FHA; and (4) the complaint is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity … However, as noted supra, Defendants’ motion clearly raises a facial, not a factual, challenge to Plaintiff’s standing. See (Doc. No. 15 at 30–31).

Harvey v. Cline

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

The DOC, however, is immune from suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. See Kreutzberger v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 684 F. App’x 107, 108 (3d Cir. 2017); Lavia v. Pa. … Furthermore, an 19 inmate may not avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the administrative policies were not clearly explained

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2022

Tr. 104-105; Doc. 17-4, pp. 27-28) (denying Title II application because Plaintiff did not have enough “work credits” to qualify for benefits). … Third, Plaintiff argues that inpatient hospitalization is not required to establish that a plaintiff’s limitations are not severe.

Stahurski v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

The record also shows the claimant established treatment with a physiatrist on June 16, 2020. … As a lay person, the ALJ simply is not qualified to interpret raw medical data in functional terms.” § 25:66. An ALJ may not substitute his or her own opinion for medical evidence, 3 Soc. Sec. Disab.

Vega

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2026

This document clearly does not constitute a contract, and even if it did neither Shah nor his employer is a party to the contract. … The court finds that medical expert testimony would be needed for Vega to establish that his treatment was inadequate.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2021

The Trust responds that (1) all of the challenged exhibits qualify as ancient documents and are therefore excepted from the hearsay rule, and (2) the exhibits further qualify under other hearsay exceptions. … These exhibits qualify as ancient documents, and also qualify as “directories” because they are “compilations that are generally relied on by the public.” See FED. R.

Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. v. Bell Justice Facilities Corp.

455 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2006

It is important to note that “the non-moving party cannot rely upon conclusory allegations in its pleadings or in memoranda and briefs to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Pastore v. Bell Tel. … Although Defendant makes a creative argument that the FBOP does not qualify as an “owner” (doc. 48 at 11-12) as defined by the PCSPA, this Court finds that the FBOP may, indeed, be an “owner” within the PCSPA.

Smith v. Club Exploria LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024

| Conceding the remainder, defendant argues that plaintiff cannot establish | the fourth element based on a lack of comparator evidence. … Such | abstract concepts may at times indicate what is allowed and disallowed at the | furthest margins, but they do not clearly define what is forbidden or permitted in common practice within those margins.”).

Walsh v. Curran

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

But they have been unable to clearly differentiate between particular bail bonds written by Castellano authorization and those written authorization. … Specific performance should only be granted where the facts clearly establish the plaintiff’s right thereto, where no adequate remedy at law exists, and where justice requires it.” , 436 A.2d at 1385 (citation

Szabo v. Muncy Industries, LLC

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

As the movant, Szabo carries the burden to establish the absence of any disputed facts and Muncy is entitled to all reasonable inferences. … He’s clearly someone that trains people to do a certain job, but he’s not a supervisor.

Burkholder v. Kijakazi

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

However, to qualify for benefits by showing that an impairment, or combination of impairments, is equivalent to a listed impairment, a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting “medical findings equivalent in … On this score, however, it is also clearly established that the ALJ's treatment of this issue must go beyond a summary conclusion, since a bare conclusion “is beyond meaningful judicial review.”

Grant

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2025

Standard of Review Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court “must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or | evidence is admissible.” FED. R. … “Thus, other acts are admissible under Rule 404(b) in the }employment discrimination context for the proper purpose of establishing... discriminatory intent.” Id.

Brockington v. Garcia

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

An appeal to final review cannot be completed unless an inmate complies with all established procedures. … Monetary damages qualify as “compensation or other legal relief normally available from a court.” Sanders, 2013 WL 1703582, at *6.

Graziano v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2024

He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … Any second amended complaint must be clearly label and use the docket number assigned to this case.

Jackson v. White

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2020

April 10, 2020) (the court held that since defendant did not exhaust his BOP administrative remedies as required, “it [did] not decide whether he has established that there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ … As this court recently stated in Cruz, 2020 WL 1904476, *4 and in Cordaro, 2020 WL 2084960, *7, “the determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director.”

Harrison v. Saul

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

If a claimant establishes a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the ALJ considers step three. … The ALJ clearly failed to apply this legal standard when he required that the marked limitations be the result of mental impairments, contrary to the regulation.

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2019

fair-share fee requirement which non-union members were compelled to pay Local 668 and the union membership dues that plaintiff paid to Local 668, and any injury plaintiff allegedly suffered by her payment of dues was clearly … Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (Supreme Court held that one of the “few limited circumstances” where a private entity qualifies as a state actor under §1983 is “when the government acts jointly with the private entity”).

Johnson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2023

Second, the motions to strike will be granted because a licensed practice nurse does not qualify as “an appropriate licensed professional.” … ; (2) the statute or regulation must clearly apply to the conduct of the defendant; (3) the defendant must violate the statute or regulation; and (4) the violation of the statute must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's

Muldoon

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2026

“The 401(k) Plan is a defined contribution pension plan intended to qualify as a profit sharing plan with a qualified cash or deferral arrangement under sections 401(a), 401(k) and 402A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 … Pa. 2014) (stating the same and noting that “Third Circuit precedent . . . holds that a named plaintiff must establish proper standing to bring each claim before class certification”); see also Clark v.

Wheeler v. Saul

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2020

Owens was qualified as a medical expert at the time of the administrative hearing. … 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.”).