District Court
MEMORANDA AND ORDERS
OCTOBER 31, 2024
BY SLOMSKY, J.
Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC et al;
21-3300; For the foregoing reasons, Defendants� Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 131) will be granted.
BY MARSTON, J.
USA v. Bailey; 23-498; For the
reasons above, the Court denies Bailey�s motion to dismiss.
BY WOLSON, J.
Domus BWW Funding, LLC et al v.
Arch Insurance Company et al; 23-094; Domus is
entitled to pre- and postjudgment interest as a
matter of law. Therefore, under Rule 60(a), I will award prejudgment interest
on Domus�s legal invoices and settlement starting
from December 30, 2019, through the date of an amended order, when postjudgment interest will begin to accrue.
BY WOLSON, J.
Euclid v. Transportation Security Administration et al;
23-4335; I will grant the TSA�s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Mr. Euclid�s
Amended Complaint. There�s no amendment that Mr. Euclid could make to cure the
problems with his Amended Complaint, so I will dismiss the case without leave
to amend.
BY MOORE WELLS, J.
Lucille B. v. O�Malley; 24-375; This
court finds that the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff�s treating sources.
Furthermore, due to the extensive delay, the fully developed record, and
substantial evidence indicating that Plaintiff is disabled, an award of
benefits is warranted. Plaintiff�s Request for Review is, therefore, granted.
BY YOUNGE, J.
Jones et al v. CVS Health Corporation et al; 24-1703; For the foregoing reasons, Defendants� motion to dismiss is
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
BY HEY, J.
Brown et al v. Brooks et al; 23-2966; Plaintiffs filed a
Motion to Compel Supplemental Asset Discovery (Doc. 73), to which Defendants
Brooks and Mayflower responded that such discovery was proper only when the
court found that punitive damages �may be imposed upon Defendant Mayflower
Laundry & Linen.� Doc. 75-2 at 3. Having denied moving Defendants� motion
for summary judgment on punitive damages, I conclude that supplemental asset discovery
may proceed.
NOVEMBER 01, 2024
BY KENNEY, J.
335 Righters Ferry Road LP v. Minno
& Wasko Architects and Planners, PC; 23-1963; In
sum, Harkins�s Motion to Dismiss is denied with
respect to Counts I, II, III, IV, and V, and granted with respect to Counts VI
and VII. An appropriate order will be issued.
BY ARTEAGA, J.
Kim N. v. O�Malley; 23-2876; Upon review, the ALJ�s
decision and the underlying record show that her evaluation of Kim N. is
supported by �such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support� her determination. Biestek, 587
U.S. at 103. The threshold for �evidentiary sufficiency is not high� and remand
for further consideration is not required. Id.
BY BAYLSON, J.
CMPC USA, Inc. v. GWSI, Inc. et al; 24-2087; For the
foregoing reasons, Defendants GWSI, MGE, Michael Gerace,
and Kevin Burke�s Motion to Dismiss Counts III, IV, and V is DENIED.
BY WOLSON, J.
Myers v. Sulman et al; 24-5547;
None of Mr. Myers�s claims is plausible, and he cannot fix any of them via an
amended pleading. If an amendment �would be inequitable or futile,� I can deny
leave to amend.
BY PAPPERT, J.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Musk, et al; 24-5823; Not
so. District attorneys, where so empowered, may file suit in the name of the
Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. AG of Commonwealth, 309 A.3d 265, 275-78 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).
BY GALLAGHER, J.
Varughese v. City of Allentown;
23-3805; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.