DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDA AND ORDERS

DECEMBER 05, 2024

BY RUFE, J.

In RE: Clobetasol Cases (Direct Purchaser); 16-27241; Defendants� motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Leitzinger is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as his opinions relate to his alternative overcharge calculations.

BY BRODY, J.

Belt et al v. P.F. Chang�s China Bistro, Inc.; 18-3831; For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 214) is DENIED and the Motion to Unseal (ECF No. 216) is DENIED AS MOOT.

BY GOLDBERG, J.

Eastman et al v. City of Philadelphia; 21-2248; Having considered the facts and the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, I find that the City has not met its summary judg�ment burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

BY REID, J.

Cynthia Proite v. Otis Worldwide Corporation et al; 22-4575; For the reasons set forth above, Otis�s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied.

BY QUI�ONES ALEJANDRO, J.

Dwight v. Krasner et al.,; 24-2513; For the reasons set forth, the Court will grant Dwight leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the Amended Complaint.

BY YOUNGE, J.

Segreaves v. Haines et al; 24-4356; For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Segreaves�s Amended Complaint without prej�udice and grant him leave to file a second amended complaint in the event that he can state a plausible claim to relief.

BY KENNEY, J.

DePirre v. Gorman; 24-4910; Defendant�s motion is granted, without prejudice, under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has failed to ��state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.��

BY S�NCHEZ, J.

Kardosh v. Chester County and the Municipality of West Goshen et al; 24-5918; The Court will dismiss Kardosh�s Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursu�ant to 28 U.S.C. � 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Kardosh had two opportunities to allege plausible claims. The Court concludes that a further opportunity to amend would be futile.

BY LEESON, JR., J.

United Employment Associates v. Landmark Construction Company, Inc. et al; 23-3668; For the reasons discussed, Defendants� Renewed Motion to Dismiss for lack of per�sonal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim is granted.

BY GALLAGHER, J.

Pineda v. Lake Consumer Products, Inc.; 24-1074; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant�s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff�s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.