TitleMax of Delaware, Inc. et al v. Weissmann

Filing 71

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Attorney Fees; finding as moot 66 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Mary Pat Thynge on 3/1/2022. (Taylor, Daniel)

Case 1:17-cv-01325-MPT Document 71 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1190

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE, INC. ,
TITLEMAX OF OHIO , INC.,
TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC. , and
TMX FINANCE OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
C. A. No. 1: 17-cv-01325-MPT

V.

ROBIN L. WEISSMANN,
Defendant.

ORDER
TitleMax of Delaware, Inc., TitleMax of Ohio, Inc., TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., and
TMX Finance of Virginia , Inc. (collectively, ''TitleMax") brought this action against Robin
L. Weissmann (the "Secretary"), in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities ("the
Department") .1 TitleMax's Amended Complaint challenged the legality of an
Investigative Subpoena for the Production of Documents and Information (the
"Subpoena")2 issued by the Department pursuant to Pennsylvania state law that was
being litigated by the same parties in Pennsylvania state court. 3 The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment in this court on the constitutionality of the Subpoena. 4
On December 7, 2020 , the court granted summary judgment in favor of TitleMax and
against the Department ("MSJ Opinion"). 5

1
2
3

4
5

0.1. 5 (Amended Complaint).
D.I. 44-1 , Ex. 1.
0.1. 5.
0.1. 45; 0 .1. 48.
TitleMax of Del., Inc. v. Weissmann, 505 F. Supp .3d 353 (D. Del. 2020).

Case 1:17-cv-01325-MPT Document 71 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1191

On December 21 , 2020 , TitleMax filed a Motion for Recovery of Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses as a prevailing party in this action Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ("Motion").6
On January 4, 2021 , during the pendency of briefing on the Motion , the
Department filed a Notice of Appeal of challenging the MSJ Opinion .7 On January 24 ,
2022 , the Third Circuit "reverse[d] the judgment in favor of TitleMax and direct[ed] that
the District Court enter judgment in favor of the Department. "8 On February 24 , 2022 ,
after expiration of the time to file a petition for rehearing , the Third Circuit issued its
Mandate.9
In light of the Third Circuit's decision , TitleMax is not the prevailing party in this
action and TitleMax's Motion (D.I. 57) is DENIED . The Department's Motion for Leave
to File Sur-Reply (0.1. 66) is DENIED as MOOT.

March 1, 2022

Isl Mary Pat Thynge
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

D.I. 57 . The Department also filed a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition
to TitleMax's Fees Motion (D.I. 66).
7
D.I. 61 . The case was docketed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on January 6,
2021 at No. 21-1020. See D.I. 62 (Notice of Docketing Record of Appeal) .
8
TitleMax of Del. , Inc. v. Weissmann , 24 F.4th 230 , 241 (3d Cir. 2022) .
9
See D.I. 70 (Judgment) ; D.I. 70-1 (Mandate Letter) (enclosing "the certified judgment
... in lieu of formal mandate . .. to be treated in all respects as a mandate").
2