District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

AUGUST 07, 2024

BY RUFE, J.

USA v. Henderson et al; 17-606; For the aforementioned reasons, Henderson�s motions will be denied.

Stuff Electronics (Dong Guan) Limited et al v. For Your Ease Only, Inc. et al; 20-4333The evidence does not support success on any of the other parties� claims. The Court finds that Stuff is entitled to the retained funds of approximately $453,000.00.

BY PAPPERT, J.

Miller v. City of Philadelphia et al; 18-1443; There are no grounds for equitable tolling, Miller�s claims dismissed based on the statute of limitations are also dismissed with prejudice.

Sample v. The City of Philadelphia et al; 19-051; There is no basis for equitable tolling or delayed accrual, Sample�s claims dismissed based on the statute of limitations are also dismissed with prejudice.

United States of America v. Amerisourcebergen Corporation et al; 22-5209; The Court cannot determine the relevance of various subcategories of communications without more information. Nor should it raise and resolve issues the parties have not specifically defined and argued.

BY SAVAGE, J.

Wayne v. Clark et al; 21-4209; The undisputed material facts show that the conditions of Wayne�s restrictive confinement did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

BY WOLSON, J.

Friedland v. Zaken et al; 21-5404; His remaining claims are time barred and lack merit. I will therefore adopt Judge Reid�s R&R, deny the Petition in part, and dismiss it as untimely in part.

Zuckerman v. Fort Dearborn Insurance Company et al; 22-1993; Substantial evidence supported Dearborn�s decision to deny his claim for benefits, so Dearborn is entitled to summary judgment, absent any evidence that it abused its discretion in rendering its decision.

BY LEESON, JR., J.

Daniels et al v. Marleihia Harper et al; 23-3867; The foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss in part Plaintiffs� Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs� Heck-barred claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a new civil rights complaint only in the event their convictions or sentences are reversed, vacated, or otherwise invalidated.

BY HEY, J.

Michael G., v. O�Malley; 23-4511; Defendant has stated that, on remand, an ALJ will further evaluate Plaintiff�s claims, offer an opportunity for a new hearing, and issue a new decision.

BY PADOVA, J.

Fang v. Wuxi Biologics USA LLC et al; 24-172; The reasons stated above, we conclude that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiff�s claims against WuXi Cayman would not be able to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

BY BEETLESTONE, J.

Quarles v. Modus Hotels; 24-1027; The Amended Complaint alleges that more than one month passed between these two events, and �[b]y itself, without further evidence of a causal link, �one month . . . is not an unusually suggestive amount of time.��

BY BARTLE, J.

Berry v. Equifax Information Services, LLC; 24-2864; The foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss Berry�s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Berry will be given leave to file an amended complaint in the event he can state a plausible basis for a claim against Equifax.