Case law

SEUBERT & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. THE AMBASSADOR GROUP LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2022

As regards, Plaintiffs’ alter ego/veil piercing claims, the Kentucky statute refers to an immunity exception for “negligence, wrongful acts, or misconduct.” … Typically, the question of “whether an undisputed set of facts establishes a contract is one of law.” Buff v. Fetterolf, 207 Pa.Super. 92, 215 A.2d 327, 330 (1965).

CURRIE v. JOY CONE CO.

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

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 … 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

CORRITORE v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2020

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 … Peterson was contacted on October 17, 2018, the Decedent had clearly failed to respond to two different courses of antibiotics, and her vital signs had been abnormal for more than a week.

EMMETT v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2025

Moreover, because intangible harms like the publication of personal information can qualify as concrete, the risk of identity theft or fraud in Clemens constituted an injury-in-fact. Id. … ING Life Ins. & Annuity Co., 486 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2007) (“[T]he ‘lost data’ cases . . . clearly reject the theory that a plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for credit monitoring services or for time and money

SURMAN v. PAYNE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2023

that: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly … His experience in accident reconstruction qualifies him to draw this conclusion.”). Therefore, the Court finds that Mr.

ANDREWS

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

It clearly said on the outside, JANET ANDREWS Personal Notes (big and bold). While I have never snooped through Margie or Marleens personal stuff I’m not surprised. … The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual “in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions

Air Vent, Inc. v. Vent Right Corp.

730 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2010

Vent Right essentially concedes infringement of the '574 Patent, but argues that the '574 Patent is invalid because, among other reasons, prior art references clearly anticipate and/or render obvious the claims of the '574 … The Federal Circuit has explained that, [w]hen no prior art other than that which was considered by the PTO examiner is relied on by the attacker, he has the added burden of overcoming the deference that is due to a qualified

In Re Chambers Development Securities Litigation

912 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 1995

First, the Court’s views as to the competence and qualifications of all active counsel are fully shared by Special Master McLean, who had even more contact with the attorneys, and who is eminently qualified to evaluate the … The point is, while the Court agrees the plaintiffs had a strong case against both the Chambers defendants and the Grant Thornton defendants, they clearly had their work cut-out for them to convince a jury of their allegations

ETKINS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

Apr. 29, 2021) (two-and-a-half-month gap between pregnancy disclosure and termination insufficient to establish causation), Ms. Etkins does not rely on temporal proximity to establish a causal nexus. … Pa. 1994) (“If the person who decided that plaintiff’s employment should be terminated had no knowledge that she had engaged in the protected activity in question, then clearly he could not have retaliated against her for

BOEHM-SCHARFF v. RUE21, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2023

Strauss’s declaration and a declaration submitted by Tara Elders, which establish many of the facts outlined above. ECF 34, p. 12. … Sept. 15, 2023) (“Likewise, with respect to Plaintiff's assertion that she did not agree to the terms and conditions and was never provided with a copy, the evidence of record clearly establishes that Plaintiff accessed

FENNELL v. TACU

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2021

Thus, the plaintiff “must establish that the amended pleading relates to the same conduct or transaction or occurrence set forth in the original complaint; that within the . . . time period prescribed by Rule 4(m), the … Like the other new claims included in the proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, based on the facts alleged, clearly relates back to the original Complaint.5 Similarly, the Court sees no

DEVIN DALESSIO TRUCKING, LLC v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

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

Therefore, it is now established that complete diversity jurisdiction exists. 2 ECF No. 1 Ex. … “Clearly one cannot be liable for breach of contract unless one is a party to that contract.” Lockhart v. Federal Ins. Co., 1998 WL 151019, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 1998) (citation omitted).

COOK v. GAMESTOP, INC.

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

Id. at 1108-09; see also In re Google, 806 F.3d at 139 (“[W]e are persuaded that—at a minimum—some queried URLs qualify as content.”). … That was clearly a tactical decision. Allowing Ms.

PORTER v. DRAFTO CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2021

Porter’s stated intention of retiring in 2017 and (2) “that since Porter had decided to continue working, he must clearly understand that he could no longer cause problems with other Drafto employees.” … Porter has established a prima facie case of age discrimination Drafto concedes that Mr. Porter can establish the first three elements of a prima facie case of age discrimination. ECF No. 22 at 11.

ESTANISLAO ENTERPRISES INC. v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.

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

It is well established that the FAA promotes a strong federal policy in favor of enforcing commercial arbitration agreements to which parties have agreed. See Zirpoli v. … The Court’s review of the pleading clearly indicates that at no point does EEI directly challenge the delegation clause. (Docket No. 11).

SHEALEY v. PITTSBURGH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2025

(“[S]ixteen days qualifies as unusually suggestive timing.”) (cleaned up); Thomas, 351 F.3d at 114 (stating that more than three weeks is not unduly suggestive). … Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[P]rotesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct.”).

MICHAUX v. TEMAS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2019

At the Daubert hearing, the court expressed concern that the claims and legal theories were not clearly identified. Plaintiffs’ counsel offered to submit a document to clarify them. … Calhoun, 350 F.3d at 322 (“An expert may be generally qualified but may lack qualifications to testify outside his area of expertise.”).

BLACKBEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. YOUNGSTOWN PIPE & STEEL, LLC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2021

“It is well-established that the appropriate Rule under which to file motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is Rule 54(b).” Cezair v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Civ. … to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance ... as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly

MARSH v. UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC.

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

This is clearly incorrect. … Clearly, this dispute is inextricably intertwined with and requires interpretation of the CBA.

MARONDA HOMES, LLC v. MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2021

Defendant argues that (1) “there are no factual allegations that trigger coverage for Maronda as an ‘additional insured’ within the four corners of the Complaint[s]” filed in the Underlying Actions; and (2) even if Plaintiff qualifies … In sum, Defendant’s Motion hinges on the argument that an affirmative defense—the exclusion to the Policy—is clearly established on the face of the complaints in the Underlying Actions. See id. at 17–18. II.