Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC

Filing 124

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry)defendant Crowns motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), (Doc. 107), is DENIED;the plaintiffs motionS (Doc. 110)& (Doc. 116), are DENIED; Crowns request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), (Doc. 114), is GRANTED;the courts directive that the parties file renewed summary judgment motions is held in abeyance until the Third Circuit decides whether Crown can be considered a debt collector under Henson;the court will STAY the plain tiffs Doc. 64 motion to certify class until it decides the renewed dispositive motions; and the courts instant Memorandum and Order are hereby CERTIFIED for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). (See order for full details).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 11/16/17. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY BARBATO,

:

Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

GREYSTONE ALLIANCE, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:13-2748

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:

ORDER
Based upon the memorandum issued this same day in the abovecaptioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1)

defendant Crown’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), (Doc. 107), is DENIED;

(2)

the plaintiff’s motion to file her brief in opposition to Crown’s
motion for reconsideration without sealing, (Doc. 110), as well as
the plaintiff’s motion to file her reply brief in support of her (Doc.
110) motion without sealing, (Doc. 116), are DENIED;

(3)

Crown’s request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), (Doc. 114), that the
court strike any reference to the protected information from
plaintiff’s brief in opposition, (Doc. 110-2), as well as the attached
exhibit, (Doc. 110-3), namely, Crown’s Consolidated Financial
Statement for years 2012-2014, and from plaintiff’s reply brief,
(Doc. 117-1), is GRANTED;

(4)

the court’s directive that the parties file renewed summary
judgment motions is held in abeyance until the Third Circuit
decides whether Crown can be considered a debt collector under

Henson;
(5)

the court will STAY the plaintiff’s Doc. 64 motion to certify class
until it decides the renewed dispositive motions; and

(6)

the court’s instant Memorandum and Order are hereby
CERTIFIED for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1292(b). The Order involves a controlling question of law on
which there could be substantial grounds for difference of opinion
based on the Henson case. Immediate appeal has the potential
to materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The
following controlling question of law is hereby CERTIFIED to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: whether
Henson requires a finding that Crown is not a debt collector in this
case when it was a third-party buyer of the debt, and the debt was
in default at the time it purchased it.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

Date: November 16, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2013 MEMORANDA\13-2748-01-ORDER new date.wpd

2