Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
38 results for '* judge:"District Judge Stickman"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-02-16
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:23-cv-2000
Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction in its patent infringement action alleging infringement on a design patent and court found plaintiff did not show an ordinary observer would be deceived into mistakenly purchasing defendant's accused product instead of plaintiff's Tote Hanger and plaintiff offered no concrete evidence to support the claim of irreparable harm. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2023-12-18
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Construction | Retail
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:21-cv-914
Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether roofing contractor's work was a factual cause of an underlying slip and fall action. Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment denied.
Publication Date: 2023-07-03
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:21-cv-00609
Court excluded categories of damages as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to identify those categories in its initial disclosures or supplements, as plaintiff did not identify those damages until serving its expert report after the close of fact discovery, which constituted prejudicial surprise to defendant. Defendant's motion to preclude damages granted.
Publication Date: 2023-06-05
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Construction
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:23-cv-552
Party to contract did not waive its right to invoke arbitration by filing a third-party complaint for indemnification against the other party in an underlying lawsuit, as the parties' contract expressly permitted filing court claims for indemnification in actions and thus the filing of the third-party complaint could not evidence an intent to waive or abandon the right to invoke arbitration. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction denied.
Publication Date: 2023-03-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Agriculture | Manufacturing | Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:22-cv-1164
Plaintiffs had alleged viable overtime compensation claims by pleading sufficient facts to demonstrate they were misclassified as independent contractors and that defendants had liability as a single employer/joint employers. Defendants' motion to dismiss denied.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: Construction | Consulting | E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:21-cv-1851
Plaintiff Mold Medics and third party Shwackammer moved to dismiss individual defendant Rubino's counterclaims and third party complaint in a trademark infringement action and court found Rubino insufficiently pled his intentional interference with prospective contractual relations and Lanham Act unfair competition claims but did sufficiently state a claim for cancellation of plaintiff's registered mark. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2022-10-10
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:19-cv-1517
Sex and age discrimination claims failed where plaintiff had no evidence proving defendants were involved in the decision to terminate plaintiff's employment, having delegated that decision and actively advocating against termination. Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Education
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1003
Defendants moved to dismiss the title VI, breach of contract and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act claims in plaintiffs' action asserting private school did not stop race-based harassment of plaintiff student and court found plaintiffs sufficiently pled their title VI and breach of contract claims, their punitive damages claim failed as a matter of law and they failed to plead they exhausted their administrative remedies in their complaint. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Automotive | Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0860
Breach of insurance contract and bad faith claims not dismissed where insureds alleged that insurer failed to undertake reasonable investigation of their vandalism and auto part theft claim and accordingly improperly denied their total loss claim. Defendant's motion to dismiss denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2022-07-18
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Construction
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0791
Absent any required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the doctrine of complete preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act does not apply; thus, plaintiff's state Minimum Wage Act claim was not preempted given that resolution of the claim would require the court to look beyond the parties' project labor agreement. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read