Case law

MINOR v. MCDONOUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2023

He belongs to a protected class, was qualified for the position and was not hired. … the position and neither is clearly better qualified, it is within the employer’s discretion to choose among them so long as the decision is not based on unlawful criteria.”

MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOWARDS TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2021

As noted above, however, Mosites also has the burden of establishing its interest in this litigation. Treesdale, 419 F.3d at 220. … MMIC argues that, because Mosites is not entitled to coverage as an “insured” or “additional insured” under the Policy with respect to the claims at issue, “there is no claim for which Mosites qualifies as [an] insured

McMillen Engineering, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

744 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2010

The record as read in the light most favorable to plaintiff establishes the background set forth below. … Similarly, the October 3, 2005 letter from RACF to plaintiff does not qualify as a “claim” because allegations of negligence were also absent.

DOUGLASS v. OPTAVIA LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2022

Apr. 20, 2016) (“[P]re-litigation solutions [are] clearly[] the most expedient and cost-effective means of resolving legal matters.”). Although the parties did not reach a resolution, they apparently agreed that Mr. … Douglass and his counsel are free from conflicts of interest and competent and qualified to represent the class, such that they are adequate representatives.

DOUGLASS v. OPTAVIA LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 14, 2022

Apr. 20, 2016) (“[P]re-litigation solutions [are] clearly[] the most expedient and cost-effective means of resolving legal matters.”). Although the parties did not reach a resolution, they apparently agreed that Mr. … Douglass and his counsel are free from conflicts of interest and competent and qualified to represent the class, such that they are adequate representatives.

WALTER v. MCDONAUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2024

Thus, Plaintiff’s October 2019 EEOC Complaint qualifies as a protected activity. ii. … As regards Plaintiff’s 2017 grievance and December 2017 EEOC Complaint, even if such qualified as a retaliation claim under Title VII, Plaintiff fails to establish any causal connection between such alleged protected activities

MOE v. O'MALLEY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

Indeed, sovereign immunity and the language of 405(h) preclude such constitutional claims in the context of an appeal under Section 405(g). See N'Jai v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. … Mere error does not establish bias. See Chantal v. Berryhill, No. 2:16-cv-575, 2018 WL 585538, at *11 (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018).

One Three Five, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh

951 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2013

Any gambling establishment. Id. at § IV.A.3. … any State or Territory or 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

Curry v. United States Forest Service

988 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 1997

Defendants do not dispute that the Morality II Project qualifies as a "major Federal action” within the meaning of NEPA. 14 . … While the size of the project alone is clearly not dispositive of the issue whether an EIS should have been prepared for the Mortality II Project, it is interesting to note that the two cases cited by defendants in support

NLMK PENNSYLVANIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 22, 2022

Steel argues that there are multiple legal impediments to recovery, including federal preemption, immunity under the federal Noerr-Pennington doctrine and judicial immunity under Pennsylvania law. … Here, the federal remedy was clearly established and, indeed, NLMK availed itself of it. 33 and its attendant regulations at issue convey an unmistakable intention, in light

BOWSER v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2025

to establish that his claim falls within the coverage provided by the insurance policy.” … An equitable title or interest or other qualified property right would clearly be sufficient....

Zeno v. Ford Motor Co.

238 F.R.D. 173 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2006

The terms and conditions further established that 3. … Going forward, the court would request that the parties clearly delineate the bases for their arguments concerning contractual privity and agency.

Kobell Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Menard Fiberglass Products, Inc.

678 F. Supp. 1155 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 4, 1988

As more clearly outlined below, the court concludes that the testimony of Roger 0. … This theory is clearly substantial and non-frivolous. The question remains, however, whether there is sufficient evidence to support this theory.

United States v. Conley

859 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 1994

Under such a standard, the Duffy affidavit, supplemented by the Holmes affidavit, clearly provided the Magistrate Judge with probable cause to believe that the video poker machines of a type identified by name and described … First, the Duffy affidavit related the prior involvement of the location operators with video poker machines that qualify as gambling devices under Section 1172(a)(2)(B).

PERONIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of corporate negligence, the plaintiffs must establish each of the following elements: “1. the hospital deviated from the standard of care; … Dumpe should have called for a pediatrician because Kendall was clearly “at risk” given the 2 Certainly, Dr. Dumpe testified to the contrary.

Ent. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Lit.

735 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 13, 2010

Moreover, I fail to see any due process interest which would be served by such immunity. Katzman, 631 F.Supp. at 556 . Although the court used language supporting the exercise of general jurisdiction (e.g. … “[W]hen the jurisdictional question is complex or difficult, a court simply may avoid the issue by resolving the suit on the merits when they clearly must be decided in favor of the party challenging jurisdiction, thereby

JACKSON v. SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2025

A "scintilla of evidence is clearly inadequate to create a genuine issue of material fact . . . ." Blackburn, 179 F.3d at 103. … Intention is expressly excluded as a relevant factor; and the possibility of more than one “residence” is clearly contemplated.17 B.

ROBINSON v. UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2024

And neither Robinson nor UPMC has shown that the facts so clearly favor their own position such that summary judgment would be appropriate for either party. … To establish a prima face case of discrimination, “a plaintiff must show that 1) [she] is a member of a protected class, 2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] sought to attain or retain, 3) [she] suffered an adverse

GRASINGER v. CATERPILLAR INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2023

The photos clearly show the fracture surface contains no signs of a progressive failure, instead, it failed suddenly. … It is well established that “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training,” are to be considered by the Court when determining whether an expert is qualified. In re Paoli R.R.

DIGITAL DREAM LABS, INC. v. LIVING TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

The social media posts that Living.AI relies upon do not qualify as a public record; that category is ordinarily limited to official documents and the like. … Hanchar’s alleged statement that a “knock-off company . . . threatened to . . . have . . . proxies offer ‘to contract kill Jacob Hanchar,’” ECF No. 56-12, clearly qualifies.