ORDER THAT CUSTOMERS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NOS. 41, 45, 46, 54) IS GRANTED.… — Shao v. Customers Bancorp (Dkt. 67)

Summary

An order in Yang Shao v. Customers Bancorp, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-02640-KSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, dated March 5, 2026 and filed as Doc. 67. It grants the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (Doc. No. 41) filed by Customers Bancorp, Inc., Customers Bank, Jay Sidhu, Sam Sidhu, Karl Danielian and Rosemary Dente, with supplements (Doc. Nos. 45, 46, 54), and dismisses the complaint with prejudice as to all defendants for reasons in a contemporaneous memorandum. The order states that it is a warning to the pro se plaintiff about her litigation conduct and that further cases on the same facts may lead to an order to show cause why she should not be barred from filing. It denies the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 30) and directs the clerk to close the case. It is signed by Judge Karen Spencer Marston.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

       Case 2:25-cv-02640-KSM            Document 67        Filed 03/05/26      Page 1 of 2




                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


 YANG SHAO,
                                                              CIVIL ACTION
        Plaintiff,

        v.
                                                             NO. 25-2640-KSM
 CUSTOMERS BANCORP, INC., et al.,

        Defendants.

                                             ORDER

       AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss

Consolidated Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Stay (Doc. No. 41) filed by

Defendants Customers Bancorp, Inc., Customers Bank, Jay Sidhu, Sam Sidhu, Karl Danielian,

and Rosemary Dente (“Customers”); Customers’ supplements thereto (Doc. Nos. 45, 46, 54);

pro se Plaintiff Yang Shao’s oppositions to Customers’ motion to dismiss and supplements

(Doc. Nos. 43–44, 47–53, 55); pro se Plaintiff Yang Shao’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(Doc. No. 30); and Customers’ opposition (Doc. No. 42), it is ORDERED as follows:

       1.      Customers’ motion to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 41, 45, 46, 54) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all

Defendants for the reasons discussed in the contemporaneously filed memorandum. And, as

discussed in the same, this Order is a stern warning and notice to Plaintiff regarding her

litigation conduct in this and other courts. Should she file additional cases in this Court

regarding the same underlying facts and/or claims, the Court may issue an order for her to show

cause why she should not be barred from filing lawsuits in this Court.

       2.      Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
Case 2:25-cv-02640-KSM      Document 67      Filed 03/05/26   Page 2 of 2




3.   The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                 /s/ Karen Spencer Marston
                                                 KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.




                                    2


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.paed.638041.67.0.pdf

Size

191,777 bytes

SHA-256

c125beed9e3ba8fd2517055cd538360e31cadf7cae071e21dff4dbc7f5fc522e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.paed.638041.67.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com