Case law

KORFF v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2024

He determined that Plaintiff’s restless leg syndrome, obesity, and prediabetes did not qualify as severe impairments. (R. 26-27). … The Court notes that the ALJ clearly took very seriously his duty to assist Plaintiff in compiling the administrative record in light of her lack of representation.

EMMETT v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

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

The Court does not accept that this would qualify as notice or consent, as the Session Replay Code does not record cookies. … In fact, in TransUnion, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff’s claim of harm can qualify for Article III standing, even if harm would not be established under the standards of the traditional harm the plaintiff’s

BALLARD v. BHI ENERGY I SPECIALTY SERVICES LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2022

. § 201 et seq., establishes “a national floor under which wage protections cannot drop,” it does not preclude states from enacting more beneficial wage and hour laws. Chevalier v. … Clearly, § 301 does not grant the parties to a collective-bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law. Id. at 211-12.

WARD

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

Ward Cannot Establish a Prima Facie Case To prove a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the … Ward cannot establishment pretext.

SCHNUR v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION

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

In fact, in TransUnion, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff’s claim of harm can qualify for Article III standing, even if harm would not be established under the standards of the traditional harm the plaintiff’s … The Court does not accept that this would qualify as notice or consent, as the Session Replay Code does not record cookies.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P., and Mylan Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Aventis Pharma S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis Puerto Rico Inc.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2026

But Noerr- Pennington immunity is not absolute. … “Activity 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 relationships of a

MCMASTERS v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

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

an award unless it finds “both that (1) the arbitrators knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly … If this were the case, merely being black or female or a paraplegic would also automatically qualify as "direct" evidence of discriminatory animus whenever such an employee interacted with others in the workplace.

WALKER v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2022

Finally, for the purposes of preliminary certification, the Court finds the named plaintiffs and counsel are free from conflicts of interest, as well as competent and qualified to represent the class, such that they are … Such notice “must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a

VUYANICH v. SMITHTON BOROUGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2022

When a Rule 12(c) motion is not used to raise Rule 12(b) defenses, judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is not appropriate “‘unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved … “Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States].’” Halsey v.

Moody v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.

127 B.R. 958 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 1991

Fulham & Co. was authorized to develop qualified buyers and to conduct the preliminary steps in the acquisition of Jeannette Corporation by these buyers. … As Jeannette was solvent under the Pennsylvania Act, it clearly was solvent under the Code. 16 .

PEARCE v. FOREST HILLS BOROUGH

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

Section 1983 establishes a statutory cause of action to vindicate constitutional violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … “A trial witness, including a police officer, sued under § 1983 has absolute immunity with respect to any claim based on the witness’s testimony.” Leith v. Middlesex & Somerset Cnty.

BUXTON v. WETZEL

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

Clearly an act of retaliation for letting my voice be heard[.] . . . Due to the numerous of warnings I brought to the staff and wardens attention[.] [sic] (ECF No. 126-6) at pp. 6-7. … Plaintiff also claims that at one point Defendant Milliren said to Plaintiff “this is the DOC all staff members stick together and are all immune” and “so, it’s my word against a slave let’s see if [Plaintiff] files anymore

KAIRYS v. SOUTHERN PINES TRUCKING, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 24, 2021

establish pretext, Mr. … To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, Mr.

CLAIBORNE v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2020

Accordingly, the Court holds that FedEx has not met its burden of clearly establishing that either of these bases supports a finding of a directly adverse relationship with respect to LLR’s concurrent representation of … For all of the reasons discussed above, the Court further finds that FedEx has not clearly established that LLR’s representation of Plaintiffs is directly adverse to the Carrow class. 2.

Sightsound. Com Inc. v. N2K, INC.

391 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2003

Because Aka-shi was published approximately six months before the application for the ’573 Patent was filed in June 1988, Akashi qualifies as prior art to the Sightsound Patents. … The Federal Circuit Court stated, “These three conditions ... are fundamental to the meaning of a material object as clearly and consistently specified in the patent description.” Id. at 1337 .

PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP v. SCHMIDT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2023

The individual intervenors have failed to establish that they have an interest in the state not counting the ballots of others. … This requirement is clearly satisfied here, as to the Republican Committees, as several Defendants have explicitly expressed an interest in not participating in the defense of this case.

GRAHAM v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2022

She further explained that because Plaintiff had not established care with Dr. Lam until after her DLI, Dr. … Young established a connection between Plaintiff’s limitations and the relevant period, the Court will order remand. See Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706 (citing King v.

NELSON v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

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

Clearly, State Farm in no way conveyed a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of the suit limitation provision. … Pfister is not qualified to offer the expert opinions contained in his Affidavit, and that the same should be disregarded as inadmissible to the extent it offers such opinions.

STEWART v. LEWIS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2019

“Federal question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint establishes that ‘federal law creates the cause of action.’” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. … on immunity, the statute mandates dismissal— even if dismissal comes before the defendants are served.”).

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund, individually, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.; Edward W. Stack; Navdeep Gupta; and Lauren R. Hobart

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2026

Neither does statement 6 qualify as an opinion or as a forward-looking statement. It includes no qualifiers of belief, and, by using industry terms of art, Ms. … The underlying Rule 10b-5 violations alleged against Defendant DICK’s Sporting Goods survive, and Plaintiffs have established that all other Defendants exercised control over the company.