DONOHUE v. REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANTS PHEAA AND THE PHEAA INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' (#20) IS GRANTED AND COUNT I OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ASSERTING VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA IS DISMISSED. BE CAUSE THE REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST PHEAA AND THE PHEAA ARE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND ARE STATE LAW CLAIMS THE COURT DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER COUNTS II AND III AND THOSE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 2/19/13. 2/19/13 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU,
INC., et al.
AND NOW this 19th day of February 2013, upon consideration of a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint by defendants PHEAA and the PHEAA individual defendants’
(Dkt. No. 20), plaintiff Meghan Donohue’s reply thereto (Dkt. No. 25), plaintiff’s notice of
recent authority in further support of her reply (Dkt. No. 31) and defendants’ response thereto
(Dkt. No. 32), it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Count I of the
Second Amended Complaint asserting violations of the FDCPA is dismissed. Because the
remaining claims against PHEAA and the PHEAA are individual defendants are state law claims
the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II and III and those claims
are DISMISSED without prejudice.
___/s/ Thomas O’Neill_______
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?