Case law

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.

GOLSTON v. SMITH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2021

where 100% of minimum must be served before becoming eligible for paroles; VOTIS, JAG, PREA are quid pro quo federal regulatory programs commandeering state legislative, executive, and judicial process in the clearly … Ed. 2d 603 (2017) (“An attorney error does not qualify as ‘cause’ to excuse a procedural default unless the error amounted: to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.

LEEDSWORLD, INC. v. HARE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2025

But establishing the existence of a trade secret is only the first step in the analysis. … While this excuse may not immunize her from liability for damages, it does suggest that—now that this purpose has been satisfied—future use or misuse is less likely.

GALE v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2022

Gale qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). All parties agreed that Mr. … Gale has not and cannot establish cause. - 9 - Similarly, Mr.

TORRES v. BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 20, 2023

Pa. 2012) (“According to the Third Circuit, Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy is satisfied by showing that (1) Class Counsel is competent and qualified to conduct the litigation; and (2) class representatives have no conflicts of … Under Rule 23, 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

BISHOP

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2026

(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.” … A claim is frivolous if it: (1) is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory and/or, (2) contains factual contentions that are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

BROWN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 2026

This immunity extends to state agencies and departments. See Clark v. Zaken, 2026 WL 1096368, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 1093464 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2026). … It is well-established that prisoners have a protected right of access to the courts. See Bound v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977).

NEWTON v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 24, 2022

Clearly, the preparation of initial damages calculations is appropriate information to be provided by a plaintiff as part of his/her initial disclosures in an employment discrimination case. … However, the jury found that Newton did not establish that his disability was the sole factor in the PSP’s decision not to promote him to the rank of Corporal.

GALE v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2022

Gale qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). All parties agreed that Mr. … Gale has not and cannot establish cause. - 9 - Similarly, Mr.

JOSEPH v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

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

As an initial matter, AGH does not appear to dispute that Joseph, who has a physical impairment that affects his ability to speak, is a qualified person with a disability. … Clearly, Kalla and Joseph had a poor relationship for a number of reasons, and Kalla was an ineffective and unprofessional supervisor to employees other than Joseph.

PROTIN v. GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2024

GPI retained younger, less qualified employees, and his termination was motivated by age-based animus. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 28, 32). In its Answer, GPI denied that it fired Mr. … NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983) (“[B]aseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.”).

SNYDER v. DAVIDSON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2023

That said, a “trial court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Johnstown Heart & Vascular Ctr., Inc. v. … Davidson has other, less prejudicial means of establishing her drug use. See e.g., Tabor v.

WILSON v. TPK, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2023

Patent ‘386’s claim body clearly defines “a structurally complete invention.” This Preamble merely states the purpose and/or intended use of the invention. … Wilson argues that “mounting plate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning because nowhere in the intrinsic record does the patentee ever qualify the claimed “mounting plate” as “flat.” Further, Mr.

SEGLOWICH v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023

Sarpolis’ opinion clearly contradicted the ALJ’s RFC determination, and the ALJ therefore had to give some indication of how he considered this contrary evidence. … Schramke’s 2019 notes in no way establishes that he considered her more comprehensive report from a year later.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 85 v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

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

Third Circuit, on average, take almost 10 months to decide from the date a notice of appeal is filed.2 At the same time, while very much uncertain, the increasing availability of COVID-19 vaccines, and potential for herd immunity … Such a restriction would clearly be unconstitutional. But “on duty” speech is not exempt from First Amendment protection either. See Urofsky v.

PUGH v. VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2023

138, 141 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[A]lthough neither the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nor this Court has passed on the issue, the federal district courts in Pennsylvania have consistently concluded that a private entity does not qualify … should recognize that certain sections of the General Safety Law are clear mandates of Pennsylvania public policy, and by discharging him, Valmont engaged in an adverse employment action that implicated these clearly

Kovach v. Turner Dairy Farms, Inc.

929 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2013

While the language after the second semicolon is qualified so that the protected right is to “express at meetings,” the language before the semicolon does not contain such a restrictive phrase. … If the union fails to file suit, the aggrieved member may then sue after establishing “good cause.”

MOSES v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2023

Moses has established a prima facie case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981 or the PHRA, Moses must show that “(1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified for the … Rather, a prima facie case “clearly require[s] only ‘evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on an illegal discriminatory criterion.’”

WARNER v. SHELL LEGACY HOLDINGS, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2022

Alternatively, SWEPI maintains that Judge Conti’s determination as to the existence of enforceable contracts should be vacated because it was clearly erroneous. … Here, the Court is not persuaded that Judge Conti clearly erred in her articulation of the trade usage rule.

CARDWELL v. ESTOCK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2025

New Castle County, 970 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.4 (3d Cir. 1992)) (“‘a contention in a brief’ clearly ... may not ‘be used to ‘substitute for an allegation in a complaint.’”). … As it relates to Plaintiff’s ADA claim, under the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability may be excluded from participation in the programs of a public entity because of his disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.