Case law

REINIG v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A.

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

“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 interests. … Citizens is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Standard Overtime Portion of the PMWA Regular Rate Claim The parties’ submissions clearly demonstrate that under Citizens

MIMS v. CITY OF NEW CASTLE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2022

“To have a property interest in something ‘a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Punitive Damages Lastly, New Castle argues that any punitive damages must be dismissed because a municipality is immune from punitive damages.

WEAVER v. GAT AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that she was (1) disabled within the meaning of the relevant statute; (2) qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, … post-pregnancy qualify as an actionable disability. See, e.g., Brennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp., 850 F.Supp. 331, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1994); Mayer, 211 F.Supp.3d at 420.

BLACKWELL v. United States

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2021

The Supreme Court emphasized that “[t]he important thing is to identify a particular time” that “clearly shows that diligence is in order.” Id. … And § 780-113(a)(30) qualifies as an underlying conviction for the career offender enhancement. United States v.

PACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2021

He particularly disliked 3 To qualify for one of the identified listings, a claimant must suffer from two marked or one extreme limitation in four functional areas. See e.g., 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. … Having considered this evidence, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s allegations of functional limitation were not totally supported by the record, but he accommodated Plaintiff’s established limitations by restricting Plaintiff

YOHO v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must show (1) that he is at least 40 years old; (2) that the defendant took an adverse employment action against him; (3) that he was qualified … Indeed, the record clearly shows that BNY had evidence, including corroboration of certain key details by Mr. Yoho himself, to support its conclusion that Mr. Yoho engaged in misconduct. Mr.

Huber v. Taylor

519 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2007

predominance of individual questions, a class action was not the most efficient way to litigate the matter; (3) plaintiffs were not typical of the putative class of Northerners because six of the eight plaintiffs had not qualified … Dismissal for a facial challenge is “proper only when the claim ‘clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or ... is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’ ” Kehr Packages, Inc

CONLEY v. MAGOON

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023

This cannot establish Adam’s personal involvement. See, e.g., Mack v. … Defendants argue that these state-law claims are barred under Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity statute, 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2310.

LEWEN v. PENNSYLVANIA SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' HOME (PSSH)

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

Analysis 23 In this case, none of the communications or conduct cited as grounds for Lewen’s termination qualifies as protected activity.!' … In short, Lewen’s conduct and speech clearly had a detrimental impact on the morale and working relationships of PSSH’s staff.

REESE v. NORTHWEST BANK

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2025

This is enough to establish a prima facie case. See Simpson v. … Contrary to Defendants’ contention, there is sufficient evidence of their actions here to establish proximate cause: the Individual Defendants clearly had animus against Reese which may have been based on her failure to

MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. LOMBARDI

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2021

Indeed, much of the evidentiary hearing focused on whether Matthews’s information qualified as trade secrets. The Court finds that some did, and some didn’t. … Esposito’s official position is with Implant, rather than IR, these actions clearly served both Implant’s and IR’s interest, at Matthews’s expense.

FIGUEROA v. POINT PARK UNIVERSITY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 2021

Clearly it was not. Nor is the question whether Defendant was justified in closing its campus. Clearly it was. … Defendant’s marketing materials further establish that these services are part of the bargain being offered. (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43). ECF No. 34 at 4-5.

WALDEN v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2024

Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), this fiduciary responsibility is important because of conflicts of interest that arise with a bank’s potential self-dealing when providing investment advice and when compensation is not clearly … The Waldens’ non-qualified IMA account assets averaged $1.93M and their qualified IRA account assets had an average value of approximately $2.36M. Id. at ¶ 26.

Jewell v. Gonzales

420 F. Supp. 2d 406 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2006

Thereafter, a case management schedule was established and the parties conducted their discovery. … Our point is simply that neither this Court nor Plaintiffs are qualified to determine, e.g., how much violence is too much violence or whether the depiction of drug use or a criminal enterprise in a particular context is

IN RE EQT CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2020

“In addition to establishing a heightened pleading standard, the PSLRA provides a so- called ‘safe harbor’ that immunizes certain ‘forward-looking’ statements from § 10(b) liability.” OFI Asset Mgmt. v. … demand for trucks, a shortage of qualified drivers and new safety requirements for all haulers increased water hauling costs.”

THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. v. PLAID INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

Chakraborty is not qualified to evaluate the reliability of Plaid’s internal tests because she is trained in economics, not survey design, and (3) Dr. … The Lanham Act clearly allows for consideration of revenue and costs and allocates the burden of each party as to them and allocating each party’s split of the responsibility for proof. Accordingly, Dr.

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. v. BOOCKVAR

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2020

Here, they clearly would. … Important state policies and constitutional powers are clearly in play.

MILLER v. HF LENZ COMPANY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2023

at 570 (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). … HF Lenz does not dispute that Miller qualifies as an individual with a disability, though it raises a vague argument that it was not informed of the disability.

SROKA v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 20, 2021

The Court agrees that Defendant DOC is immune from PHRA claims under the Eleventh Amendment. Mitchell v. Miller, 884 F. Supp. 2d 334, 365 (W.D. Pa. 2012). … It is not entirely clear if Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ argument for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII wage-based discrimination claims, but there is insufficient evidence in the record to clearly support such

WINTJEN v. DENNY'S, INC.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2021

Where “Congress has directly and clearly spoken to the precise question at issue, our . . . analysis is complete . . . and Congress's unambiguously expressed intent controls.” Helen Mining Co. v. … Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(t), an employee only qualifies as a “tipped employee” when they are “engaged in an occupation” from which they “customarily and regularly” derive $30 or more in tips per month.