Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 32, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 32 · 2022-03-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 
ALICIA MARSHALL, DANIEL 
PRONSKY, PARIS TOWNSEND, 
NANCILEE HOLLAND, LEONA 
OWSLEY, KOLAWOLE AHMADOU, 
KIANA DERVIN, KRISTINA 
HENDERSON, DUSTIN INNIS, KELLY 
STALNAKER and JAMIE JONES, 
individually and on behalf of all others 
similarly situated, 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
 
v. 
 
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 
Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFENDANT PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC’S MOTION  
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF 
 
1. 
On December 22, 2021, the parties stipulated to, and the Court ordered, deadlines 
for Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint, for Defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss, and the 
parties to brief the Motion (the “Order”) (Doc. 16). 
2. 
The Order also expressly stated that it shall not “be construed to prevent 
Defendant from seeking leave from the Court to file a reply brief in accordance with the Court’s 
procedures.” Order ¶ 4. 
3. 
The parties adhered to the deadlines set forth in the Order. 
4. 
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on January 14, 2022 (Doc. 18). 
5. 
Prestamos filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint on February 
14, 2022 (Doc. 24). 
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 32     Filed 03/17/22     Page 1 of 3

 
 
3 
6. 
Plaintiffs then filed a thirty-seven page opposition to Prestamos’s Motion to 
Dismiss on March 10, 2022 (Doc. 29). 
7. 
Plaintiffs’ opposition brief is expansive, raises new arguments (e.g., improperly 
citing preemption doctrine), mischaracterizes several of Prestamos’s contentions, and makes 
factual assertions about the PPP and Prestamos’s conduct that need to be addressed and 
corrected. 
8. 
Accordingly, Prestamos seeks leave from the Court to file a concise reply brief in 
support of Prestamos’s Motion to Dismiss.   
9. 
Prestamos’s proposed reply brief is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
10. 
Prestamos believes that the reply brief will assist the Court in resolving the 
Motion to Dismiss and advance the eventual resolution of this litigation. 
WHEREFORE, Prestamos respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for leave 
to file a reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss. 
 
 
 
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 32     Filed 03/17/22     Page 2 of 3

 
 
4 
Dated: March 17, 2022 
BALLARD SPAHR LLP 
 
 
By: /s/ Marcel S. Pratt 
 
 
 
Marcel S. Pratt (Pa. ID 307483) 
 
 
Michael R. McDonald (Pa. ID 326873) 
 
 
Alexa L. Levy (Pa. ID 327973) 
 
 
 
 
 
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor 
 
 
 
 
 
Philadelphia, PA 19103 
 
 
 
 
 
T: 215-665-8500 
 
 
 
 
 
F: 215-864-8999 
 
 
PrattM@ballardspahr.com 
 
 
McDonaldM@ballardspahr.com 
 
 
 
 
 
LevyA@ballardspahr.com 
 
 
 
HERRERA ARELLANO LLP 
 
 
 
 
Roy Herrera* 
 
 
Daniel A. Arellano* 
 
 
Jillian Andrews* 
 
 
530 East McDowell Road 
 
 
Suite 107-150 
 
 
Phoenix, AZ 85004 
 
 
T: 602-567-4820 
 
 
Roy@ha-firm.com 
 
 
Daniel@ha-firm.com 
 
 
Jillian@ha-firm.com 
 
 
 
*pro hac vice admission to be sought 
 
 
 
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG     Document 32     Filed 03/17/22     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.32.0.pdf

Size

44,874 bytes

SHA-256

cd339802589f5aaf6ee461f70b3818cada762ff22e5695b661613f0c45b622bc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.32.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)