Gatter must show that the defendants lacked probable cause. See Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 537 Pa. 68, 641 A.2d 289, 293 (1994) (noting that a false arrest claim is defeated if there was probable cause to make the arrest); Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir.1995) (requiring a showing that the police lacked probable cause in order for the plaintiffs to prevail on their section 1983 false arrest claim). While the existence of probable cause is generally a jury question, it may be appropriate for summary judgment where “the uncontroverted facts could not lead a reasonable person to find that probable cause was lacking.” Telepo v. Palmer Township, 40 F.Supp.2d 596, 611 (E.D.Pa. 1999); accord Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185, 192 (3d Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). A showing of probable cause requires “proof
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues recognizing that summary judgment on any and all aspects of a partys claim including damages is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact