District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

OCTOBER 17, 2024

BY MARSTON, J.

Sims et al v. Harry; 24-2030; For the reasons given above, the Court grants Sims leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the Complaint as to both Sims and Cotton as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �� 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

BY MARSTON, J.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAS) Products Liability Litigation; 24-3094; For the reasons above, Plaintiffs� motion is denied.

BY BAYLSON, J.

Wilson v. Philadelphia Family Court District et al; 24-5144; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Wilson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint. Considering Wilson�s recent filing history, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile.

BY REID, J.

Wenrich v. Manorcare of Laureldale PA, LLC d/b/a Manorcare Health Services - Laureldale et al; 21-789; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will approve the proposed settlement agreement and request for attorney�s fees.

OCTOBER 18, 2024

BY LEESON, JR., J.

Prikis et al v. Maxatawny Township et al; 23-3901; For the reasons set forth herein, as well as in the Opinion dated August 20, 2024, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently state a claim in the proposed second amended complaint.

BY GALLAGHER, J.

Tresslar v. The Northampton County Court of Common Pleas et al; 24-1435; For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants� Motion to Dismiss(ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BY GOLDBERG, J.

Fata v. Ortiz; 24-2402; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Fata leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Amended Complaint.

BY S�NCHEZ, J.

Marin v. WPVI-TV/6ABC et al; 24-4594; For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. Leave to amend will not be granted, because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile.

BY S�NCHEZ, J.

Parks v. City of Philadelphia et al; 24-1299; Parks has failed to sufficiently plead his claims against the moving defendants and accordingly, those claims�Counts I, II, and IV of the Complaint�are dismissed against them.

BY STRAW, J.

Deanna H. v. O�Malley; 23-1072; The ALJ did not err when it considered and evaluated the opinion of Plaintiff�s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Martinez-Jiminez. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ�s findings and the RFC. Moreover, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff�s subjective complaints and the ALJ�s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

BY PAPPERT, J.

Lynch v. Tasty Baking Company individually and d/b/a Tasy Cake et al; 23-4445; Tasty has submitted evidence supporting all the hours it claims its attorneys reasonably worked. Specifically, it submitted billing entries, each including a description of the tasks performed.

BY HODGE, J.

Innocoll Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al v. AstraZeneca PLC et al; 23-3601; As stated, the question in the forum non conveniens analysis is not whether a case may be heard in a forum, but whether the forum is the best choice to decide the case. The Court understands that Plaintiffs would prefer that a United States court hear this case.

BY SURRICK, J.

USA v. Lambert; 23-187; For the foregoing reasons discussed herein, Defendant�s Motion to Suppress is denied.

BY PEREZ, J.

L.D. et al v. Independence Blue Cross; 23-345; For the reasons stated, IBX�s motion for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiffs� motion for summary judgment is denied.