District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

JANUARY 06, 2025

BY PAPPERT, J.

USA v. Austin et al; 05-0280; Under a sentencing regime that permitted release based solely upon rehabilitation, Andrews would be a top candidate, but that is not the lens through which the Court may view and grant his motion.

BY MARSTON, J.

J.L. et al v. Lower Merion School District; 20-1416; For the reasons set forth above, the Court sustains the District�s objections to the qualifications of Dr. Young and Dr. Stephens to opine on the efficacy of the letterboard and communication partner as a communication method for Alex, reserves ruling on the District�s objection to the qualifications of Ms. von Hagen to offer the same opinion until trial, and adopts the District�s proposal and rejects Plaintiffs� proposal with respect to the jury instructions on deliberate indifference.

BY MURPHY, J.

Dormann v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; 23-3520; For the above reasons, we grant summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.

BY McHUGH, J.

Jews At Haverford et al v. The Corporation of Haverford College; 24-2044; Because none of Plaintiffs� breach of contract claims meet the requisite pleading standard, they will be dismissed.