Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (PAED 589575) Letter dated March 14, 2022 by Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 30, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Court filing

Letter dated March 14, 2022 by Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 30, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Filed March 14, 2022 in Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC; one of 344 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Filed2022-03-14

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 30 · 2022-03-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1055 Thomas Jefferson St. 
NW Suite 540 
Washington, DC 20007 
Tel: 202.463.2101 
Fax: 202.463.2103 
 
 
 
AL • CA • DC • DE • FL • IA • ID • IL • MA • MO • NJ • NY • PA • TX • WV | baileyglasser.com 
 
March 14, 2022 
 
 
 
Via CM/ECF 
 
Judge John M. Gallagher  
United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania  
Edward N. Cahn Courthouse & Federal Bldg.  
504 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 4701  
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 
  
 
 
Re: 
Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.) 
 
Dear Judge Gallagher:  
 
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs pursuant to section II.C.2 of Your Honor’s Policies and 
Procedures in reply to Defendant Prestamos CDFI, LLC’s (“Defendant”) February 25, 2022 
response (ECF 27) (“Defendant’s Response”) to Plaintiffs’ February 14, 2022 letter (ECF 22) 
(“Plaintiffs’ Letter”).  Plaintiffs’ Letter requests a telephone conference for the Court to resolve a 
discovery dispute.  Defendants’ Response opposes that conference. 
 
The Court should hold the conference and resolve the parties’ discovery dispute.  As is 
clear from the parties’ filings, the parties dispute whether discovery should be stayed and 
bifurcated.  And because of that dispute, Defendant has persisted in thus far continuing to fail to 
produce even one document or any other meaningful discovery despite the fact that this case was 
filed October 1, 2021 and Plaintiffs served document requests and interrogatories on 
November 16, 2021.  Defendant’s contentions in its Response that Plaintiffs filed their Letter 
“without notice” regarding “a purported discovery dispute” and that Plaintiffs “rushed the matter 
to the Court” and Plaintiffs’ Letter “is premature” are therefore completely undermined by the 
parties’ submissions and Defendant’s acknowledgment in its Response that it seeks the very stay 
and to bifurcate to which Plaintiffs object.  ECF 22, 27. 
 
In addition, Defendant’s Response also acknowledges that Plaintiffs served a subpoena 
on Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”), Defendant’s corporate parent.  ECF 27 at 2. 
Defendant’s Response fails to disclose, however, that the same counsel representing Defendant 
in this litigation also represents CPLC in connection with that subpoena; that CPLC is therefore 
similarly and predictably stonewalling and thus has also failed to produce even a single 
document and apparently refuses to produce any responsive documents; and that, in its formal 
written responses and objections to 32 of the 33 document requests in that subpoena, CPLC 
Lawrence J. Lederer 
llederer@baileyglasser.com  
 
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 30     Filed 03/14/22     Page 1 of 2

Judge John M. Gallagher  
March 14, 2022 
Page 2 
 
 
AL • CA • DC • DE • FL • IA • ID • IL • MA • MO • NJ • NY • PA • TX • WV | baileyglasser.com 
 
explicitly objects on the specific ground, among others, that the requested discovery is “the 
subject of a dispute that should be resolved before seeking discovery from CPLC.”  (emphasis 
added.)   
 
The Court should not countenance such gamesmanship.  That is so particularly in the 
circumstances here which involve the status and potential disposition -- indeed, potential theft -- 
of the unfunded PPP proceeds that the U.S. Small Business Association approved and the federal 
government advanced and guaranteed for Plaintiffs and other putative members of the proposed 
nationwide class at issue in this litigation.  In sum, Defendant’s bald assertion that “there is no 
time-sensitive evidence to which Plaintiffs require immediate access” (ECF 27 at 3) could not be 
further from the truth. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
/s/ Lawrence J. Lederer 
 
Lawrence J. Lederer 
 
LJL:ss 
cc: All counsel of record (via CM/ECF) 
 
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 30     Filed 03/14/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.paed.589575.30.0.pdf
Size
80,143 bytes
SHA-256
44e8224a189ca1a1a8393e0182db69f8640a0105c8e553b98e4fb55b6e99061e
Our copy
gov.uscourts.paed.589575.30.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top