District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

OCTOBER 28, 2024

BY BEETLESTONE, J.

Fenico et al v. City of Philadelphia; 20-3336; As set forth above, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the City on all Plaintiffs� First Amendment retaliation claims.

BY BEETLESTONE, J.

Melvin et al v. City of Philadlephia et al; 21-3209; As set forth above, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the City on all Plaintiffs� First Amendment retaliation claims.

BY HODGE, J.

Horizon Stevedoring, Inc. v. Royal White Cement, Inc.; 22-711; For the reasons discussed above, the Court will deny both parties� Motions for Summary Judgment.

BY PEREZ, J.

Monge v. University of Pennsylvania et al; 22-2942; For the foregoing reasons, the Hyperallergic Media Defendants� motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint are granted in part and denied in part.

BY KENNEY, J.

Cutting Edge Tree Professionals, LLC v. State Farm Fire Claims Company et al; 23-3197; For the reasons stated above, this Court will grant Defendant�s Motion for Summary Judgment on the final remaining bad faith claim under 42 Pa. C.S. � 8371.

BY KEARNEY, J.

Greenwich Terminals LLC et al v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al; 23-4283; We do not vacate the decisions to require a longer record. We are instead compelled by the extensive record to find the Corps� decision making arbitrary and capricious.

BY KEARNEY, J.

The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al; 24-1008; We do not vacate the decisions to require a longer record. We are instead compelled by the extensive record to find the Corps� decision making arbitrary and capricious.

BY SCHMEHL, J.

Johnson v. Clark et al; 23-4738; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Johnson�s conditions of confinement claims against Cotton-Williams and Reasons based on being served contaminated food. The Court will also dismiss with prejudice Johnson�s claims against Clark.

BY SCHMEHL, J.

Noetic Specialty Ins. Co. n/k/a Proassurance Specialty Ins. Co. d/b/a Noetic Specialty Ins. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., et al.; 22-2398; Consequently, Noetic has no duty to defend Braun in the underlying actions. The Court will enter judgment in favor of Noetic on Noetic�s declaratory-judgment counts. It follows that the Court will also enter judgment in favor of Noetic on Braun�s counterclaims.

BY McHUGH, J.

Himes v. Five Below, Inc. et al; 24-3638; For the reasons set forth above, the Arkansas Funds Group�s Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Co-Counsel will be granted, and Trevor Bixby�s will be denied.

BY McHUGH, J.

City of Orlando Police Officers Pension Fund v. Five Below, Inc. et al; 24-4905; For the reasons set forth above, the Arkansas Funds Group�s Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Co-Counsel will be granted, and Trevor Bixby�s will be denied.

BY SURRICK, J.

Fitzgerald v. Hospital University of Pennsylvania et al; 24-5271; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Fitzgerald leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss her Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fitzgerald may refile her claims in state court, where federal jurisdiction will not be an issue.

BY QUI�ONES, J.

Calloway et al v. American Express National Bank et al; 24-5332; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Calloway�s Complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Calloway will not be given leave to amend his claims because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile.

BY PAPPERT, J.

Shields v. Wiegand et al; 20-2999; The sixth Poulis factor �presumptively weighs against dismissal� because some of Shields� claims survived the motion to dismiss.

BY LEESON, JR., J.

USA v. Draper; 22-386; Draper�s Motion for Compassionate Release is denied because he has failed to show that he is the only available caregiver for his mother and because consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors counsel against release this early in his sentence.