STOUT STREET FUNDING LLC v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 92

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT TITLE RESOURCES GUARANTY COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS 28 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM (COUNT VIII). IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE MOTION IS DENIED. PLAINTI FF STOUT STREET FUNDING LLC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 60 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF'S REFILING OF THE MOTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM. DEFENDANT OTIS JOHNSON, MABSTRACT, LLC AND MABSTRACT MANAGEMENT , LLC'S PETITION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE ANSWER 64 IS DENIED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 6/1/12. 6/4/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPS, MAILED, E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STOUT STREET FUNDING LLC

:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
OTIS JOHNSON a/k/a OTIS JOHNSONDAVENPORT, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-5634

ORDER

AND NOW, this

1st

day of

June

, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Title

Resources Guaranty Company’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28), Plaintiff Stout Street Funding
LLC’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 60), and Defendants Otis Johnson, Mabstract,
LLC, and Mabstract Management, LLC’s Petition to Set Aside Entry of Default and Seeking
Leave to File Answer (ECF No. 64), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in
opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendant Title Resources Guaranty Company’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s negligence claim
(Count VIII). In all other respects the Motion is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff Stout Street Funding LLC’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 60)
is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling of the Motion in accordance
with the accompanying Memorandum.

3.

Defendants Otis Johnson, Mabstract, LLC, and Mabstract Management, LLC’s
Petition to Set Aside Entry of Default and Seeking Leave to File Answer (ECF
No. 64) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.