Case law

EVERETT v. SALLIE MAE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2023

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) gives the Court the authority to screen and dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Despite same, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plausibly allege facts to establish any such claims. Complaint does not contain any such allegations.

Peerless Insurance v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School

19 F. Supp. 3d 635 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 2014

Co. of Pa., 926 A.2d 977, 982 (Pa.Super.Ct.2007)), that would arguably qualify as a “loss.” It follows that this is not a case analogous to Republic W. Ins. Co. v. … While the Underlying Complaint does ask for "restitution” of funds it claims PA Cyber was not entitled to, it also clearly demands damages and interest, which would qualify as a "loss” under the Policy.

TAKTL, LLC v. IWR, NORTH AMERICA, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2024

Having established that Urwin is a qualified expert, his opinions are sufficiently reliable, and there are good grounds to believe that his testimony will be helpful to the jury, defendants have met the foundational requirements … Having established that Birmingham is a qualified expert, his opinions are sufficiently reliable, and there are good grounds to believe that his testimony would be helpful to the jury, plaintiff has met the foundational

Federal Trade Commission v. Davison Associates, Inc.

431 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2006

To establish liability under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission must establish that there was a material representation which was likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances … Plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to establish defendants’ earnings in other years.

WASHINGTON v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2020

This, however, is most likely because Plaintiff did not clearly articulate his claims against her, or any of the other defendants, and she did not read his Complaint to assert such an equal protection claim. … proceeding in forma paupers and to dismiss claims “at any time” if the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

ABRAHAM v. BRENNAN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2020

An employee bears the burden of establishing that they are a qualified individual. Gaul, 134 F.3d at 580. … Plaintiff is clearly referencing a September 7, 2016 email to Ms.

Howden North America Inc. v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance

875 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2012

The defendant must establish, initially, that an adequate alternative forum exists as to all defendants. Id. at 44 . … As the District Court observed, there is nothing in the certificates issued by INA that clearly restricts INA’s reinsurance coverage beyond the limits stated in the underlying policies.

Tice v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

515 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2007

These issues were explicitly itemized in the ALJ’s written opinion and included: (1) Does Bristol-Myers qualify as a company covered by SOX? … Here, arguably plaintiff can establish a prima facie case for age discrimination and sex discrimination.

Moody v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.

85 B.R. 319 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1988

It is noted that all of the employees (active and retirees) have not as yet established the exact amount of their claim. … Clearly, there was no need for a contingent fee agreement in this case. (See Appendix Document Numbers 24, 25 and 36.)

Davis v. AK Steel Corp.

670 F. Supp. 2d 413 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 17, 2009

That “AK Steel and the Committee failed to establish or follow claims procedures that would yield a decision on the merits of Mr. … Davis claims that “the 2002 IBP II does not clearly state that the application for LTD must be made before service is broken.” (Id., at 17.)

Hodczak v. Latrobe Specialty Steel Co.

761 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2010

Here, with the exception of Hodczak, LSS appears to concede that plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination. … As such, the burden shifts back to plaintiffs to establish that LSS’ proffered reason was pretext for age discrimination.

EMRIT

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

(B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” … Alaska Sept. 15, 2025) (dismissing complaint because it failed to state a cognizable claim, lacked of any arguable basis in law and fact, failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and failed to establish

United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Company

218 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1963

At page 3: “That the current merger movement has had a significant effect on the economy is clearly revealed by the fact that the asset value of the companies which have disappeared through mergers amounts to 5.2 billion … It is clearly set out in the transcript of March 11th starting at page 11: “The Court: Is this now the ultimate or is this merely a step in the direction which you had intended or projected? “Mr.

Stephenson v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

545 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2008

Causation is clearly an element of Pennsylvania causes of action for negligence (proximate or legal cause and factual cause) and strict products liability (factual cause). See Summers v. … Clearly, this Court cannot make credibility determinations in a summary judgment proceeding, Big Apple BMW, Inc. v.

Bowles v. Alexander

65 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1946

The plaintiff is the duly appointed and qualified Administrator of the Office of Price Administration. 2. … That the facts and circumstances produced at the time of the hearing of the civil action clearly establish that the acts of the defendant were willful and the result of failure to exercise practicable precautions to comply

Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

244 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2003

As the authors intended, a quick review of this table clearly reveals the disparate effects of ergot alkaloids. … See In re: Diet Drugs, 2001 WL 454586 at *7 (“a party cannot qualify as an expert generally by showing that the expert has specialized knowledge or training which would qualify him or her to opine on some other issue”); In

Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

618 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Factual Background Established During Limited Discovery 2 1. … Section 1.11 of the SOW clearly describes the relationship between the parties and establishes that the contractor maintains control over its employees, while the Army is responsible for managing and ensuring the contractor

CONIKER v. HREZO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Id. An example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fantastic or delusional. Id. at 328. … Coniker appears to be asserting a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against at least one state entity, but he has failed to provide any information to establish that he has a right to relief. It is possible Mr.

JOHNSON v. WILLIAMS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2025

Plaintiff attached to his motion a “complaint” seeking to establish a "7 million dollar lawsuit" against Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian for damages to plaintiff's "character and [reputation]" as a consequence of "Serena … An example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit, and an example of the second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fanciful or delusional. Id.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. MMDG L.P.

354 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2018

The fact that MERS is designated as "mortgagee" is irrelevant given the role and nature of MERS in mortgage transactions and the fact that the remainder of the Mortgage Agreements clearly establish that MERS was the nominee … The Court is aware of no authority qualifying these pronouncements.