District Court

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

DECEMBER 03, 2024

BY RUFE, J.

Bistrian v. Warden Troy Levi et al; 08-3010; The Court is satisfied that this award has provided reasonable compensation to Bistrian�s attorneys for their work completed in response to the United States� flagrant errors and omissions throughout this litigation.

BY RUFE, J.

In re: Clobetasol Cases (End-Payer); 16-27242; EPPs� motions to partially exclude the opinions of Dr. James Hughes, Dr. Erin Trish, and Dr. Laura Happe are GRANTED.

BY RUFE, J.

In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation; 16-2724; EPPs� motions to partially exclude the opinions of Dr. James Hughes, Dr. Erin Trish, and Dr. Laura Happe are GRANTED.

BY MCHUGH, J.

USA v. Singleton et al; 11-076; Finally, Mr. Singleton argues that counsel should have objected that the Court�s finding of a �six-level enhancement� was invalid, having never been submitted to a jury. Two separate six-level enhancements figured in the guideline calculations, and petitioner is unclear as to which he challenges.

BY SLOMSKY, J.

USA v. Ford; 23-130; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion to Revoke Pretrial Detention (Doc. No. 34) will be denied.

BY SLOMSKY, J.

Levin v. Silverberg et al; 24-4898; Accordingly, for all these reasons, Defendants� Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 9) will be denied. The Motion to Amend Notice of Removal, which is part of the Reply in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 11), will be denied.

BY WOLSON, J.

Okildzhon Zade et al v. United States et al; 23-2344; For the reasons stated above, I will approve the Petitions To Approve The Settlement And Distribution.

BY BARTLE, J.

Easterling v. County of Delaware; 23-5016; The motion of Delaware County for summary judgment on plaintiff�s claim for retaliation under the FMLA will be denied.

BY GALLAGHER, J.

Giammarinaro v. Northampton County et al; 23-4086; Whether the members of a jury will find for Plaintiff is a question for another day, but on this record, there is sufficient evidence to permit him to bring his claims before them. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Riley, Neff, Marino, and Volpe�s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is denied.

BY YOUNGE, J.

Ferretti v. Emrick et al; 24-2865; Ferretti�s claims that Emrick and Genovese sexually assaulted him, and his claim that Emrick violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act will be served for a responsive pleading. The balance of Ferretti�s claim will be dismissed with prejudice since he has already had an opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile.