Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc.

16 Citing cases

  1. Ross v. Borough of Dormont

    937 F. Supp. 2d 638 (W.D. Pa. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing a municipal liability claim for failing to identify a policy or custom of the borough

    To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is at least 40 years old; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) he is qualified for the position; and (4) that he was replaced with an employee who is sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination. Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 Fed.Appx. 276, 278 (3d Cir.2010), citing Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702, 706 n. 4 (3d Cir.2006). See Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 689 (3d Cir.2009).

  2. Frierson v. St. Francis Med. Ctr.

    Civil Action No. 07-3857 (RMB/KMW) (D.N.J. May. 14, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, since the U.S. Marshals are responsible for effectuating service on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff, if they are at fault for failing to serve a defendant, the court will presume good cause under Rule 4(m) and will not penalize the plaintiff for this failure. Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, 277 n.1 (3d Cir. 2010); Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded on other grounds as stated in Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000); Welch v. Folsom, 925 F.2d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 1991) ("[A] plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely upon service by the U.S. Marshals and should not be penalized for failure of the Marshal's Service to properly effect service of process, where such failure is through no fault of the litigant."). However, if the plaintiff is responsible for the defective service, i.e., by failing to take reasonable steps to identify the defendants and their addresses, the presumption of good cause disappears.

  3. Gerber v. Dauphin Cnty. Tech. Sch.

    Civ. 1:23-CV-2039 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2024)

    A plaintiff must demonstrate that she is at least 40 years old, she suffered an adverse employment decision, she is qualified for the position, and the employer hired an employee who is sufficiently younger to show an inference of age discrimination. Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 Fed.Appx. 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2010). An adverse employment action must be a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”

  4. Buj v. Psychiatry Residency Training

    Civil Action No.: 17-5012 (CCC) (D.N.J. Sep. 30, 2020)

    In order to state a claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: she is at least 40 years old, she suffered an adverse employment decision, she is qualified for the position, and the employer instead hired an employee who is sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination. Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2010). While Plaintiff has alleged that she was over 40 years old when she applied to the Residency Program, as discussed above, she has not shown that she was qualified for the Residency Program in light of her rejection from numerous other programs, her initial failure on entrance exams, and her comparatively unenthusiastic and generalized letters of recommendation.

  5. Kaeun Kim v. Prudential Fin.

    Case No: 19-19594 (SDW) (LDW) (D.N.J. Jun. 3, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that: (1) he is at least 40 years old; (2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; (3) he is qualified for the position; and (4) [defendant employer] replace[d] him with an employee who is sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination." Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2010). At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff "is not required to plead every element" but must still "provide sufficient non-speculative allegations that, accepted as true, raise a reasonable inference of age-based discriminatory animus."

  6. Turner v. Doe

    Civil No. 15-5942 (RBK/JS) (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2017)

    The Marshals Service's failure to effectuate service may constitute good cause, so long as the plaintiff properly identified the named defendant. Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, 277 (3d Cir. 2010).

  7. Johnson v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.

    Civil No. 11-5764 (RMB/JS) (D.N.J. Sep. 23, 2015)

    "While the Marshals Service's failure to effectuate service on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff may constitute 'good cause' within the meaning of Rule 4(m), the plaintiff must take 'reasonable steps . . . to identify for the court the defendants named in the complaint.'" Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, n. 1 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2009)). Over three years have passed since Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint and since the Marshal's Service served Defendants Sheppard and Werner.

  8. Gibbs v. Univ. Corr. Healthcare

    Civil Action No.: 14-7138 (MAS) (D.N.J. Jun. 10, 2015)

    Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension of time. See Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F. App'x 276, 277 n.1 (3d Cir. 2010) ("Marshals Service's failure to effectuate service on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff may constitute 'good cause' within the meaning of Rule 4(m)").

  9. Toy v. Boeing Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3230 (E.D. Pa. May. 13, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Court concludes that no factfinder could reasonably find that Boeing replaced Toy with any employee, and specifically, with an employee sufficiently younger to support an inference of discriminatory animus. See, e,g, Pavlik v. International Excess Agency, Inc., 417 F.App'x 163, 167 (3d Cir. 2011); Novak v. Posten Taxi Inc., 386 F.App'x 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2010). Toy failed to satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case.

  10. Kiesewetter v. Otis Elevator Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1517 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 1, 2014)

    Golod v. Bank of Am. Corp., 403 Fed. Appx. 699, 703 n.2 (3d Cir. 2010); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 212 (3d Cir. 2009); Johnson v. Del. Cty Juvenile Det. Ctr., 2012 WL 895507, at *7 (E.D. Pa. March 16, 2012). Johnson v. Del. Cty Juvenile Det. Ctr., 2012 WL 895507, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2012) (citing Hodczak v. Latrobe Specialty Steel Co., 451 Fed. Appx. 238, 240 (3d Cir. 2011); Novak v. Posten Taxi, Inc., 386 Fed. Appx. 276, 278 (3d Cir. 2010); Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101, 1108 (3d Cir. 1997). Pivorotto v. Innovative Sys. Inc., 191 F.3d 344, 357 (3d Cir. 1999).