District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

OCTOBER 10, 2024

BY S�NCHEZ, J.

USA v. Ashmore et al; 04-673; The same is true here. The bases for Potter�s Hobbs Act robbery and � 924(c) convictions are ambiguous. But the Government unquestionably proved Potter was guilty not only of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery but of a completed robbery based on the theft of the keys. For this reason, he cannot show more than a reasonable possibility the Court�s instructional errors affected the verdict.

BY BARTLE, J.

Luo v. Owen J. Roberts School District et al; 14-6354; The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the administrative decisions challenged by Luo in Luo V and Luo VI were appropriate. These appeals will be dismissed.

BY MURPHY, J.

Hicks v. City of Philadelphia et al; 22-977; For the foregoing reasons, any evidence or testimony relying on the scream test is not precluded at this stage. Plaintiff�s counsel shall issue a formal apology to residents affected by the scream test as explained above.

BY SLOMSKY, J.

Heard v. Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa; 22-3212; Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff�s Petition for Attorneys� Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 68) will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $85,930.10 in attorneys� fees.

BY HEY, J.

Claudette D. v. O�Malley; 23-1706; The ALJ�s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ mischaracterized Plaintiff�s mental health treatment as routine and conservative while acknowledging Plaintiff�s treatment by a psychiatrist with psychotropic medication and regular psychotherapy.

BY SCOTT, J.

Jones v. Gansky et al; 23-2967; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the State Defendants� Motions to Dismiss and Dale Keddie�s Motions to Dismiss.

BY MARSTON, J.

Doe A.F. v. Lyft, Inc. et al; 23-3990; For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants Defendant�s motion to strike Count II of Plaintiff�s Second Amended Complaint. Count II is dismissed without leave to amend.

BY BAYLSON, J.

Womack v. City of Philadelphia et al; 24-1167; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ruiz�s Motion (ECF 11) is GRANTED with prejudice. Defendant Worrell�s Motion (ECF 12) and Defendants Gross, Tomaino, Walsh, and the City�s Motion (ECF 13) are GRANTED IN PART.

BY BAYLSON, J.

Powell v. Harry et al; 24-4239; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Powell�s Complaint in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The official capacity claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

BY BAYLSON, J.

Wilson v. Russell; 24-5404; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaints in the above three cases with prejudice because amendment would be futile.

BY KEARNEY, J.

Phillips 66 Company v. 1842 Ridge Ave LLC; 24-2914; Phillips 66 has shown the balance of the hardships supports its claim for injunctive relief because 1842 Ridge Ave�s hardship is caused by its own conduct. Phillips 66 has shown an injunction is in the public interest because the public has a right not to be deceived or confused.

BY SCHMEHL, J.

USA v. Cabrera; 19-441; Here, although the Defendant admittedly has no criminal history points, he pled guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug-trafficking and therefore falls within one of the exceptions in the guideline and does not qualify for the zero-point reduction. Accordingly, Defendant�s motion for reduction of sentence is denied.

OCTOBER 11, 2024

BY SCHMEHL, J.

USA v. Gonzalez; 19-453; Here, not only does Defendant have nine criminal history points (based on his six prior convictions), he possessed a firearm in furtherance of drug-trafficking and therefore falls within one of the exceptions in the guidelines and does not qualify for the zero-point reduction. Accordingly, Defendant�s motion for reduction of sentence is denied.

BY BEETLESTONE, J.

Wiggins et al v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings; 24-648; For these reasons, LabCorp�s Motion to compel arbitration shall be granted and this action shall be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings.

BY KEARNEY, J.

USA v. Copper; 24-088; We deny Mr. Copper�s Motion to suppress. We conclude there is a substantial basis for Judge O�Neill�s and Judge Barnes�s finding of probable cause to search the apartment, Toyota Camry, and storage unit affiliated with the apartment.

BY KEARNEY, J.

Laird v. Terra et al; 23-3429; We grant the Facility officials� Motion for summary judgment on Mr. Laird�s modified movement claims and/or dismiss them. We grant the Facility officials� Motion for summary judgment on Mr. Laird�s First Amendment freedom of religion claim.

BY KENNEY, J.

Mayer et al v. ADCS Clinics, LLC et al; 21-5303; In sum, upon balancing various public and private factors, the Court is not moved by Defendants� arguments that transferring this action from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where venue is statutorily proper under the FCA, to the Middle District of Florida would improve judicial economy or serve the interests of justice.

BY KENNEY, J.

Sargent et al v. School District of Philadelphia et al; 22-1509; For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants� Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 86).

BY SURRICK, J.

Husick v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America; 21-5599; For the foregoing reasons discussed herein, the Parties� summary judgment motions are denied in their entirety.