District Court
MEMORANDA AND ORDERS
DECEMBER 22, 2022
BY McHUGH, J.
USA v. Goldner; 15-0002; Given the
totality of
circumstances, it would be singularly inequitable to permit Mr. Goldner
to avoid responsibility for his conduct.
Govan v. Amazon, Inc.; 22-4403; For the foregoing
reasons, the Court will grant Mr. Govan
leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. �
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
BY PRATTER, J.
USA v. Nikparvar-Fard et al.; 18-0101;
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Dr. Nikparvar-Fard�s
motion for
reconsideration.
BY GOLDBERG, J.
Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.; 20-
3271; In light of the foregoing, I will grant summary judgment in
favor
of Defendant with respect to Plaintiff�s direct infringement
claims
relating to the �913 patent and the �022 patent.
BY SAVAGE, J.
Kocher v. Wilkie; 21-0921; Therefore, we
shall
grant the VA�s motion.
Mickman v. Philadelphia Professional Collections,
LLC et al; 21-4221; We shall dismiss Count I (UTPCPL) and Count V
(Civil
RICO) on the bases of the statute of limitations, failure to state
a
claim, and collateral estoppel.
Delaware River Waterfront Corporation v. The Sage
Group PLC et al; 22-1905; Therefore, we shall grant Sage�s motion
to
compel arbitration.
BY SITARSKI, J.
Thomas v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security;
21-3547; For the foregoing reasons, I find that the ALJ erred by
failing
to properly consider: (1) the supportability and consistency of
Dr.
Tecce�s and Dr. Mandel�s opinions and (2) the
subject statements of
Plaintiff himself.
BY MARSTON, J.
Robinson et al v. Pottstown Area Rapid Transit,
Inc. et al; 22-0655; For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies
CMD�s
motion for summary judgment.
USA v. Buhl; 88-0490; For the foregoing reasons,
Buhl�s Motion is denied.
BY GALLAGHER, J.
Garcia v. Philadelphia District Attorney Office et
al; 22-3864; For the reasons stated, Garcia will be granted leave
to
proceed in forma pauperis and his
Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
DECEMBER 23, 2022
BY PAPPERT, J.
USA v. Coleman; 15-0543; Under the �sliding-scale�
balancing approach applied to these factors, the �less likely a
movant is
to win, the more the other factors must be in his favor� to
prevail.