FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. MUSSER

Filing 92

ORDER (of MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION) that. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I (ECF NO. 73) IS DENIED;. AS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (ECF NO. 74)-1(footnote) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:... A MEMORANDUM WILL FOLLOW. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 2/28/2017. 2/28/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORP. as
RECEIVER for NOVA BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILLARY G. MUSSER,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-7231

ORDER

AND NOW, this _28th___ day of February, 2017, it is ORDERED that:


Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I (ECF No. 73) is DENIED;



As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 74)1 is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of breach of fiduciary duty is
DENIED without prejudice;
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of fraud in the inducement is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of fraud in
the factum is DENIED without prejudice;
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of the UTPCPL is DENIED
without prejudice;
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of unclean hands as to Counts
I, II, and III is GRANTED;
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is GRANTED;

1

The FDIC styled its motion as a Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment on Each of
Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses. Because the Parties have not completed discovery in this case, I am ruling on
the FDIC’s motion as a motion to strike affirmative defenses. After the close of discovery, the FDIC may move for
summary judgment on any remaining affirmative defenses.

1

o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of signature is
GRANTED;
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of recoupment is GRANTED;2
o Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of failure of consideration is
GRANTED as to Count II and DENIED without prejudice as to Counts I and
III.
A memorandum will follow.
s/Anita B. Brody
____________________________________
ANITA B. BRODY, J.

Copies VIA ECF on _________ to:

Copies MAILED on _______ to:

2

I will reconsider the validity of Musser’s recoupment defense and the Parties’ relevant briefing as part of my future
ruling on the recently filed Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 88).

2