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.