MACHLES v. MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C. et al

Filing 22

ORDER THAT MCCABE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT CLAIM (COUNT I) & PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW CLAIM (COUNT III) IS DENIED; CIT BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED. COUNT I, II, & III AGAINST CIT ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 11/7/17. 11/8/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARNOLD MACHLES,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C.,
AND CIT BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.

NO. 17-1015

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of Defendant McCabe,
Weisberg & Conway, P.C.’s (“McCabe”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2), and the Plaintiff’s
Response thereto (ECF No. 12), and CIT Bank, N.A.’s (“CIT”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos.
14, 15, and 17), the Plaintiff’s Response thereto (ECF No. 18), and the Reply in support thereof
(ECF No. 19), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) McCabe’s motion to dismiss the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) claim (Count I) and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) claim (Count III) is DENIED;
(2) CIT Bank, N.A.’s motion is GRANTED. Counts I, II, and III against CIT are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.

_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.