Case law

Boggs v. Harris

226 F. Supp. 3d 475 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2016

This result would clearly go against public policy favoring settlement. … Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3731 (4th ed. 2009) (“Courts ordinarily hold that oral statements do not trigger removability under the second paragraph of Section 1446(b) because such statements do not qualify as

Ankrom v. Pennsylvania

602 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1984

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.” … The evidence establishes that Diane Dubovsky, a white female, assumed the position and duties of the plaintiff.

WASHINGTON v. WRIGHT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2023

Statute of Limitations Congress has not established a time limitation for a § 1983 cause of action. Wilson v. … While Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, he does not clearly articulate how and to whom he was treated differently, and for that reason alone he has failed to state a claim.

LOVE v. THOMPSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 2019

Further, the court notes that Corrections Defendants did not initially raise the issue of qualified immunity in its supporting brief and waited until the reply brief to raise this threshold 8 In the court’s estimation … In the interests of justice, Corrections Defendants may assert its qualified immunity defense in the supplemental brief and the court will not deem the issue waived. See e.g., Garza v.

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.

LAURIA v. C.O. LIEB

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2024

Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[t]he obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings is well-established.”)). … immunity applies to Plaintiffs claims.

DANIELI CORPORATION v. SMS GROUP, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2024

“[A]ctivity ‘ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action’ does not qualify for [First Amendment] immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business … Danieli contends that SMS cannot satisfy either the objective or subjective prongs required to circumvent the protection afforded to Danieli under Noerr- Pennington immunity.

WEBSTER v. KLABON-ESOLDO

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2021

. § 1983; 2) quasi-judicial immunity bars Mr. Webster’s Section 1983 claims; 3) judicial immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars Mr. Webster’s Section 1983 claims; and 4) Mr. … A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted where “ ‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved’ and that it is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Wiseman Oil

Y.T. v. Bell

478 F. Supp. 828 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 1979

Fiallo is distinguishable from the instant case in that the plaintiffs there were aliens and clearly non-citizens. Neither is Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 , 91 S.Ct. 1060 , 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971), controlling. … However, were the plaintiff here to qualify for Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, she might well succeed in overcoming the § 205 requirement of legitimization. See Weber v.

MARX v. ARENDOSH HEATING & COOLING, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2020

The hospital and doctor forms you submitted clearly state no driving. The requirement of your present sales position employment requires you to drive daily. … establish the covered entity’s beliefs concerning the severity of the impairment..” 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2(l).

United States v. Kubini

304 F.R.D. 208 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2015

The scope of these further disclosures by Smith’s counsel is not established on this record but he has clearly generated additional documents containing the privileged information. … The email addresses are all of the same form and clearly show that the recipients are DOJ employees.

United States v. Wecht

619 F. Supp. 2d 213 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2009

established rights John Doe’s wife and child by strip-searching them. … Rather, the testimony clearly establishes that, while the relevant language did not purport to be a direct quote from any particular ACCO employee, it accurately summarized information that Agent Orsini had received from

Cahill v. Live Nation

866 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2011

To be clear, the Court does not mean to imply that the facts of the incident as described are not in dispute, as they clearly are. … The term ‘proximate cause’ is applied by the courts to those more or less undefined considerations which limit liability even where the fact of causation is clearly established. Bell v.

JAGER v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2021

However, the Court permitted the Jagers to file an amended complaint against the Defendants not subject to sovereign immunity. (Id. at 6). … Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps.* See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009).

DANIELI CORPORATION v. SMS GROUP, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2024

“[AJ]ctivity ‘ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action’ does not qualify for [First Amendment] immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business … Danieli contends that SMS cannot satisfy either the objective or subjective prongs required to circumvent the protection afforded to Danieli under Noerr- Pennington immunity.

Pennsylvania v. Porter

480 F. Supp. 686 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1979

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, 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 … Bathke, 566 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1977), the court held that the qualified immunity for public officials enunciated in Wood v.

MARTINEZ v. CREANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2024

As such, courts are afforded authority to dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.; Denton v. … (plaintiff’s claim that he had uncovered evidence of a conspiracy by the former mayor to commit sabotage and espionage in order to establish ecclesiastical law and in some way interfere with U.S. commerce were

United States v. Williams

574 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 2, 2008

To follow this logic would be clearly contrary to Steagald . … such as the grading of the offense, the number of times of conviction or the level of punishment possible for the conviction entered, the Court is presented with the issue of whether the "deliveiy/PWID” offense is one that qualifies

Schwarzwaelder v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

606 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2009

Glenn, 461 F.3d at 673 (noting that plan required only “current medical documentation” and that claimant “be under the regular care of a qualified physician ...”). … It is not uncommon for a plan to require, e.g., that the employee be unable to engage in any gainful occupation for which s/he is, or may reasonably become, qualified by education, training or experience.

Graham

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

In Wells, the court held that a conclusory complaint “clearly and adequately invokes the second exception to the middleman statement.” Id. … Injury means either a Qualifying Respiratory Injury or a Qualifying Cancer.