Court filing
Memorandum — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 114-1, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)
Filed May 15, 2024 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 | 2024-05-15 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 114-1 · 2024-05-15 · 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, JAMIE JONES, GEORGINA DREVNAK, JOHN MARTIN, EZRA BEATTIE, GREGORY LLOYD, ALYSHIA JOHNSON, LAMETRIA MARVEL, GUY GRICHAR, JAHBRAEL HORNE, ENOBONG ETUKNWA, and SHARON BRADLEY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT On December 5, 2023, the Court dismissed Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) as a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 93. The Court spoke in unequivocal terms: “the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the case as it pertains to Defendant CPLC.” Id. (emphasis in original). In direct defiance of this Order, Plaintiffs have now named CPLC as a defendant in their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Plaintiffs seek to justify inclusion of CPLC as a defendant (i) “to the extent relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Prestamos,” and (ii) “to preserve Plaintiffs’ rights in the event of an appeal.” ECF 108 (TAC). Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 114-1 Filed 05/15/24 Page 1 of 4 2 Both grounds are baseless. Even assuming CPLC’s actions are “relevant” to the claims against Prestamos,” that does not require or warrant naming CPLC as a defendant now that the Court has already dismissed CPLC for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs can simply refer to CPLC in its allegations. Nor do plaintiffs offer any legal authority permitting, let alone requiring, them to add CPLC in order to “preserve Plaintiffs’ rights in the event of an appeal.” Plaintiffs’ appellate rights are preserved by the “final judgment rule,” which provides that that “a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated.” Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[A]ny order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties” unless “the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay” and certifies the order as final). Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1999) (“Ordinarily, an order which terminates fewer than all claims, or claims against fewer than all parties, does not constitute a ‘final’ order for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). Accordingly, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Plaintiffs to include an already- dismissed defendant like CPLC in a subsequent iteration of their complaint in order to be able to appeal the dismissal. Just like Plaintiffs’ state-law statutory claims that the Court dismissed earlier in the litigation, Plaintiffs’ claims against CPLC do not need to be continually re-pled to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to appeal their dismissal. Plaintiffs’ unsupported attempt to reinsert CPLC into the case mirrors their previous attempt to justify CPLC’s inclusion in this case, which, the Court noted, failed to cite legal authority supporting their position. ECF No. 93 (Order) at 2 n.1. As the Court previously Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 114-1 Filed 05/15/24 Page 2 of 4 3 explained regarding Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional arguments, “[t]he Court relies on litigants to address substantive matters in a meaningful manner.” Id. The Court observed that Plaintiffs identified “no legal authority” demonstrating that any of the facts elicited during jurisdictional discovery supported personal jurisdiction over CPLC. Id. Plaintiffs’ TAC does nothing to cure this fatal defect, nor does it allege any additional facts that could support personal jurisdiction over CPLC. For the same reasons identified and explained in CPLC’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof, ECF No. 84, as well as the Court’s December 5, 2023 Order dismissing CPLC for lack of personal jurisdiction, ECF No. 93, the Court should yet again dismiss CPLC from this action with prejudice. Dated: May 15, 2024 BALLARD SPAHR LLP By: /s/ Marcel S. Pratt Marcel S. Pratt (Pa. ID 307483) Edward D. Rogers (Pa. ID 69337) Thomas J. Gallagher IV (Pa. ID 316269) J. Chesley Burruss (Pa. ID 331521) Henry W. Longley (Pa. ID 328847) 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: 215-665-8500 F: 215-864-8999 prattm@ballardspahr.com rogerse@ballardspahr.com gallaghert@ballardspahr.com burrussc@ballardspahr.com longleyh@ballardspahr.com Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 114-1 Filed 05/15/24 Page 3 of 4 4 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 Counsel for Defendant Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 114-1 Filed 05/15/24 Page 4 of 4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.paed.589575.114.1.pdf
- Size
- 204,121 bytes
- SHA-256
- fa360c541b7cac9243d3f1e8e93b7a8dc84b4e2e3f6aab017284cf5a1c77e05e
- Original
- PACER (login required)