District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

JUNE 26, 2024

BY REID, J.

Jacobs v. City of Philadelphia et al; 19-4615; The foregoing reasons, the City�s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is hereby granted.

BY ALEJANDRO, J.

SJ Abstract d/b/a InterstateAbstract.com et al v. Old Republic Title; 21-1334; Defendant�s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff�s deposition disclosure claim and denied as to the voicemail disclosure claim.

BY SLOMSKY, J.

Smith v. Presidio Networked Solutions, LLC; 22-736; The foregoing reasons, Plaintiff�s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 98) will be denied in its entirety, and Defendant�s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 99) will be granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment will be granted in Defendant�s favor on the PHRA Claims (Counts II and IV), the hostile work environment claims, the disparate pay claims and the gender-based retaliation claim (Count III).

Warren et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; 23-3908; The foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs� Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5) will be granted. The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and grant Plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

BY YOUNGE, J.

Cook v. Carney et al; 24-314; The Court will give Cook the option of either filing a second amended complaint in the event he believes he can articulate additional facts that could cure the defects in any of the dismissed claims or, alternatively, proceeding on his remaining claims at this time.

BY LEESON, JR., J.

Crisostomo v. Westlake Financial, Inc.; 24-937; The forgoing reasons, Crisostomo has failed to plead sufficient facts showing a plausible FCRA claim. Therefore, Westlake�s motion to dismiss is granted, but Crisostomo is granted leave to amend his complaint.

John v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services et al; 24-781; The Mandamus Act claim in Count IX, to the extent it relies on federal law, is also dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that Count IX relies on state law, the Court will not dismiss the claim but intends to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should John not plead a cognizable federal claim in a second amended complaint.

BY SCHMEHL, J.

Nehme et al v. Westfield Insurance Company; 23-5145; The foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Plaintiff�s Complaint is dismissed.