Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

PLETCHER v. GIANT EAGLE, INC.

  1. December 08, 2022

    Pa. Court Says Suits Over Giant Eagle's Mask Policy Are Moot

    Dozens of customers' lawsuits over grocery chain Giant Eagle's COVID-19 mask policy will be dismissed as moot given that health authorities and the Pittsburgh-based grocer had relaxed their mandates and were unlikely to revive them, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled.

  2. August 26, 2022

    Court Won't Sanction Anti-Mask Shoppers In Discovery Fight

    Pittsburgh-based grocery chain Giant Eagle can't sanction shoppers suing over its pandemic mask policy because the grocer's lawyers failed to meet their counterparts to try to resolve their discovery disputes before seeking to toss the complaints or make the shoppers pay legal bills, a federal judge ruled Friday.

  3. March 18, 2022

    Giant Eagle Disagrees With Shoppers Over Mooting Mask Suit

    A group of shoppers claiming supermarket chain Giant Eagle's mandatory mask policy in stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act said in court papers on Friday that they intend to dismiss their lawsuit now that the stores have returned to mask-optional shopping, but the store said separately it wants to keep taking depositions in the case.

  4. March 17, 2022

    Giant Eagle Shoppers' Mask Suit Can't Add Rehab Act Claims

    A group of Giant Eagle customers can't amend their lawsuit over the grocery chain's pandemic mask policies because they waited too long and have already run into trouble for delaying the case, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Thursday.

  5. March 07, 2022

    Judge Won't Budge On Lawyer Fronting Client's Sanctions

    An attorney for two plaintiffs suing a Pittsburgh-based grocery chain over its mask policy cannot front the payment of his clients' $10,000 sanction for delaying discovery, a federal judge ruled Friday, disregarding an ethics opinion filed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

  6. February 23, 2022

    Pa. Bar Says Atty Can Front Clients' Sanctions Payment

    The Pennsylvania Bar Association said in an advisory opinion that a lawyer for shoppers challenging a grocery chain's mask mandate can front nearly $10,000 in sanctions his clients were ordered to pay for delaying discovery because the sanctions fall under the definition of "court costs and expenses of litigation" under the rules of professional conduct.

  7. January 21, 2022

    Atty In Mask Suit To Seek Ethics Opinion Over Fronting Fees

    The attorney for dozens of shoppers challenging a Pennsylvania grocery chain's mask mandate can seek ethics experts' opinions on whether his firm can front two plaintiffs' sanctions over discovery delays, a federal judge has ruled.

  8. December 16, 2021

    Attorney Can't Front Sanctions For Clients, Pa. Court Says

    An attorney can't advance his clients nearly $10,000 for sanctions they were ordered to pay in a lawsuit over grocery chain Giant Eagle's mandatory mask policy, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled.

  9. December 02, 2021

    Giant Eagle Opposes Letting Lawyer Front Clients' Sanctions

    Pennsylvania-based grocer Giant Eagle has told a federal court that the plaintiffs' attorney in a lawsuit over a mandatory mask policy shouldn't get to pay the sanctions against two of his clients, arguing it was against the state's rules of professional conduct.

  10. November 12, 2021

    Anti-Mask Shoppers Can't File Separate ADA, Rehab Act Suits

    A group of shoppers can't consolidate two suits over Pennsylvania-based grocer Giant Eagle's pandemic mask policy and must seek permission to amend their original suit if they want to argue that the policy violates the Rehabilitation Act in addition to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal judge said.

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!