District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

JUNE 27, 2024

BY BAYLSON, J.

Velez Enterprises LLC v. KVK-Tech, Inc. et al; 20-5553; The Court will schedule a telephone conference to discuss a trial date, unless the Parties are interested in continuing mediation with the Special Master or conducting settlement conferences, both of which the Court strongly encourages.

BY GOLDBERG, J.

Jones-Chambers v. Rathfon; 23-1138; I will grant Defendant�s Motion as to the state and federal false imprisonment claims and the federal malicious prosecution claim for the additional reason that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled that he suffered a deprivation of liberty.

BY BEETLESTONE, J.

Shaqran v. Blinken; 23-1406; The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs� remaining claims, Defendants� motion will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed.

BY MARSTON, J.

Jenkins v. Wesley Enhanced Living et al; 23-1954; The reasons set forth above, the Court grants Defendants� motion for summary judgment as to Jenkins�s 2019 failure to promote racial discrimination claim and as to her hostile work environment claim, but denies the motion as to Jenkins�s 2021 failure to promote racial discrimination claim.

Taylor v. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA); 23-2140; Taylor�s motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent Taylor states a Title VII failure to accommodate claim in connection with follow-up testing during Ramadan 2023. The remainder of his motion is denied.

BY KEARNEY, J.

Batchelor v. Spagnoletti et al; 24-1258; Amendment equal protection claim without prejudice. We dismiss Mr. Batchelor�s civil conspiracy claim without prejudice because he again does not plead the existence of an understanding or agreement.

James v. McManus et al; 24-2232; We grant Ms. James�s motion and remand this matter (including the pending Motions to dismiss) to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. We deny Ms. James�s request for sanctions.

BY QUINONES ALEJANDRO, J.

Jeesse Calloway IV v. Temple University College, et al; 24-2320; Calloway will be given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, to the extent he can present a plausible claim against an appropriate defendant.

BY BARTLE, J.

USA v. Coleman et al; 96-539; The court finds that his exemplary conduct since he was released and the interest of justice warrant the early termination of his supervised release. No useful purpose would be served by reaching a contrary result.

JUNE 28, 2024

BY WOLSON, J.

Brooking v. McGinley et al; 21-2239; Having considered the objections to Judge Arteaga�s R&R, I conclude that Mr. Brooking has not shown that he is entitled to habeas relief. I will therefore adopt the R&R, overrule the objections, and deny the Petition.

Sharrock v. Radius Global Solutions LLC et al; 24-1102; The foregoing reasons, I will grant RGS�s Motion To Dismiss. I will give Mr. Sharrock an opportunity to file an amended complaint in the event he can state additional facts that would give rise to a plausible claim under the FCRA. Any amended complaint must take into account the analysis in this Memorandum.

BY MURPHY, J.

Hian et al v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. et al; 22-3742; The above reasons, LVMH�s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. We dismiss all of plaintiffs� claims with prejudice, except for their claims that LVMH�s accused designs F, G, H, I, K, and L infringe the copyright on Plaque D�egout.

Walker v. Doe et al; 23-2569; There is an outside chance that discovery will back up C.R. England�s theory, but we certainly will not enter summary judgment in its favor now.

BY HEY, J.

Tiffany A. v. O�Malley; 23-3643; Plaintiff�s case, including an opportunity for a new hearing. Because further evaluation of the evidence and a new hearing should address the issues Plaintiff has presented in her Request for Review, I will grant Defendant�s uncontested motion for remand.

BY RUFE, J.

Faw v. Villanova University; 23-3897; The Court must accept the allegations in the Complaint as true, it holds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded her claim of unjust enrichment for purposes of surviving Villanova�s Motion to Dismiss.

BY MARSTON, J.

Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc; 23-5038; The reasons set forth above, Plaintiff�s motion to remand is denied and Defendants� motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety. The Court will allow Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in the event he can do so consistent with the analysis set forth in this Memorandum.

BY PAPPERT, J.

Schwager v. Beiley et al; 24-2570; Schwager may opt to refile his claims in state court where federal jurisdiction will not be an issue.