Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Alicia Marshall, et al., 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
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY CONCERNING
DEFENDANT CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend, Nancilee Holland, Leona
Owsley, Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin, Kristina Henderson, Dustin Innis, Kelly Stalnaker
and Jamie Jones (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, respectfully attach as Exhibit A the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent ruling,
Hangey v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., No. 14 EAP 2022, --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL
8102730 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023), as supplemental authority relevant to defendant Chicanos Por La
Causa, Inc.’s (“CPLC”) pending renewed motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended
complaint (ECF No. 84).
Although Hangey focuses on where a corporation “regularly conducts business” for
purposes of Pa. R. Civ. P. 2179(a)(2)’s venue provision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
additionally noted this provision “’has a dual significance: (a) it is essential to the exercise of any
jurisdiction by the state over a foreign corporation . . . .’” Hangey, 2023 WL 8102730, at *7,
n.11. See also id., at *17 n.18 (stating that “there may be some opportunities to borrow rationale
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 91 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 4
in appropriate cases” between venue and jurisdictional principles). The Court there “reaffirmed
time and again that ‘each case must depend on its own facts’” (id. at *20), and held that venue
was proper even though the evidence showed that only 0.005% of the corporate defendant’s total
national revenue was derived from business in the county at issue. Here, the evidence shows,
inter alia, that CPLC employees regularly conducted PPP business in Pennsylvania for citizens
of Pennsylvania who sought PPP loans and actually did so pursuant to formal Intercompany
Services Agreements (“ISAs”) between Defendants. See ECF No. 86 at 12–16 (discussing the
ISAs and accompanying evidence regarding Defendants’ common use of employees and
managerial and supervisory personnel). See also ECF No. 84-1 at 6 (“To the extent that CPLC
employees worked on the PPP program, these employees were provided pursuant to the ISAs
….”).
Dated: November 27, 2023
Bailey & Glasser LLP
By: /s/ Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer (Pa. ID 50445)
Bart D. Cohen (Pa. ID 57606)
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
T.: 202.463-2101
F.: 202.463-2103
llederer@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
Bailey & Glasser LLP
Michael L. Murphy (admitted pro hac vice)
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
T.: 202.463-2101
F.: 202.463-2103
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
and
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 91 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 4
Nolan Heller Kauffman LLP
Justin A. Heller (admitted pro hac vice)
Matthew M. Zapala (admitted pro hac vice)
80 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
T.: 518.449.3300
F.: 518.432.3123
jheller@nhkllp.com
mzapala@nhkllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class and Subclasses
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 91 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 27, 2023 I caused the foregoing to be filed on the
Court’s CM/ECF system and for service of same on all counsel of record.
/s/ Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 91 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 4