Court filing
Response re 91 Notice (Other), of Supplemental Authority Concerning Defendant Chicanos — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 92, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)
Filed November 29, 2023 in Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC; one of 344 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-11-29 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 92 · 2023-11-29 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
DMFIRM #410022506 v3 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 and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG DEFENDANT CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY CONCERNING DEFENDANT CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) submits the following Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Concerning Defendant CPLC’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (the “Notice”). The “supplemental authority” to which Plaintiffs cite says nothing about the alter ego theory of personal jurisdiction on which Plaintiffs rely. See DE 42 (Second Amended Complaint) ¶ 35 (“CPLC was Prestamos’s alter ego at all times relevant in connection with PPP lending; and defendant Prestamos’s contacts in this District in connection with PPP lending and the claims at issue are imputed to its corporate parent CPLC.”) (emphasis added). Rather, as Plaintiffs themselves concede, Hangey v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., No. 14 EAP 2022, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL 8102730 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023) concerned Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 92 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 4 DMFIRM #410022506 v3 2 Pennsylvania’s venue rule, not a federal court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Hangey itself makes clear that the two concepts are distinct. 2023 WL 8102730, at *17 n.18 (“We decline to import wholesale the evolving federal general personal jurisdiction principles to our [Pennsylvania’s] venue caselaw under Rule 2179(a)(2). . . . Questions of venue . . . are distinct from questions of personal jurisdiction.”). Second, even if Hangey were relevant to personal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have not pled that any CPLC employee had any contacts in Pennsylvania. Even if they had, Plaintiffs have identified no facts indicating that such employees were acting on behalf of CPLC rather than for Prestamos. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ own Notice concedes that CPLC employees who worked on the PPP program did so on behalf of Prestamos pursuant to formal Intercompany Service Agreements. DE 91 (Notice) at 2. The evidence demonstrates that Prestamos directed any PPP lending activities, not CPLC. See DE 84-1 (CPLC Renewed Motion to Dismiss), Ex. 1 (Deposition of A. Nunez) at 38:17-20, 38:21-25; id., Ex. 2 (Deposition of J. Martinez) at 46:12- 22; see also id., Ex. 13 (CPLC Objs. and Resps. to Plfs’ First RFAs) ¶¶ 6-9. Third, the portions of Hangey on which Plaintiffs rely either expressly decline to conflate venue and personal jurisdiction principles, 2023 WL 81072730, at *17 n.18, or merely quote decades-old caselaw for the unremarkable proposition that “doing business” in a state has some bearing on personal jurisdiction in addition to venue. See id. at *7, n.11 (quoting Botwinick v. Credit Exchange, Inc., 213 A.2d 349, 352 (Pa. 1965)). That principle is irrelevant here because CPLC does no business in Pennsylvania. Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 92 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 4 DMFIRM #410022506 v3 3 Dated: November 29, 2023 By: /s/ Marcel S. Pratt Marcel S. Pratt (Pa. ID 307483) Timothy D. Katsiff (Pa. ID 75490) Thomas J. Gallagher IV (Pa. ID 316269) Alexa L. Levy (Pa. ID 327973) BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: 215-665-8500 F: 215-864-8999 PrattM@ballardspahr.com KatsiffT@ballardspahr.com GallagherT@ballardspahr.com LevyA@ballardspahr.com HERRERA ARELLANO LLP Roy Herrera (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel A. Arellano (admitted pro hac vice) Jillian Andrews (admitted pro hac vice) Austin T. Marshall (admitted pro hac vice) 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 404 Phoenix, AZ 85004 T: 602-567-4820 Roy@ha-firm.com Daniel@ha-firm.com Jillian@ha-firm.com Austin@ha-firm.com Attorneys for Defendants Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 92 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 4 DMFIRM #410022506 v3 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcel S. Pratt, hereby certify that on this 29th day of November 2023, I caused a copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Concerning Defendant CPLC’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint to be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system. s/ Marcel S. Pratt Marcel S. Pratt Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 92 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.paed.589575.92.0.pdf
- Size
- 197,577 bytes
- SHA-256
- 703ccd499df1adb9f25e76ce9ddca64d0c24de2300a322a5a922a6c512256187
- Original
- PACER (login required)