CRIMONE et al v. WEST PENN FINANCIAL, LLC et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 43 Report and Recommendation; granting 3 Motion to Dismiss; granting 5 Motion to Dismiss; granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss; and denying as moot Motions to Strike. The Clerk shall docket this case closed. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 06/30/15. (mcp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAYMOND S. CRIMONE and REBECCA A.
CRIMONE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C.;
MARC S. WEISBERG, ESQ.; ANDREW L.
MARKOWITZ, ESQ.; NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC; EKKER, KUSTER,
MCCALL & EPSTEIN, LLP; THOMAS R.
DOBSON; SANDELANDS EYET; MATTHEW
T. EYET, ESQ.; AND DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
) 2:14-cv-00808-TFM-CRE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
This case is before the Court regarding the pending Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on June 12, 2015 (ECF No. 43) in which she recommended
that this Court grant the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants in this matter: The Honorable
Thomas R. Dobson (ECF No. 3); Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Sandelands Eyet, and Matthew T.
Eyet, Esq. (ECF No. 5); McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., Marc S. Weisberg, Esq., Andrew
L. Markowitz, Esq. (ECF No. 15); and Ekker, Kuster, McCall & Epstein, LLP (ECF No. 21).1 In
addition, Judge Eddy recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs’ federal
claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the United States Constitution,
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims alleging violations
1. Defendants McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., Marc S. Weisberg, Esq. and Andrew L. Markowitz, Esq. and
Defendant Ekker, Kuster, McCall & Epstein, LLP also moved, in the alternative, for an order striking the pleading in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
of various Pennsylvania statutes and procedural rules, and disallow Plaintiffs from filing a
Second Amended Complaint because to do so would be futile.
Plaintiffs were served with the Report and Recommendation and advised of the time
within which to file objections. Plaintiffs have since filed objections (ECF No. 44) in which they
assert a series of accusations against Judge Eddy, Defendants, the Pennsylvania Bar, and the
judiciary as a whole. To be sure, none of their factual or legal challenges to the Report and
Recommendation have a semblance of merit.
Accordingly, after a de novo review of the pleading and documents in this case, the
following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court, and therefore, the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 3, 5, 15, 21) filed by the
above-captioned Defendants are GRANTED, and the claims against Defendants are
DISMISSED for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to strike filed by Defendants McCabe,
Weisberg & Conway, P.C., Marc S. Weisberg, Esquire and Andrew L. Markowitz, Esquire and
Defendant Ekker, Kuster, McCall & Epstein, LLP are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket the above-captioned action
CLOSED.
By the Court:
s/ Terrence F. McVerry
Senior United States District Judge
2. The Court dismisses without prejudice the state-law claims over which it declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction—with the exception of those counts asserted against Judge Dobson and barred by judicial immunity.
See Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 182 (3d Cir. 1999).
2
cc:
Raymond S. Crimone
2917 Sandy Lake Grove City Road
Stoneboro, PA 16153
Rebecca A. Crimone
2917 Sandy Lake Grove City Road
Stoneboro, PA 16153
(via First Class and Certified Mail)
Matthew T. Eyet
Email: meyet@sandelandslaw.com
Joseph F. Riga
Email: jriga@mwc-law.com
Sarah C. Kellogg
Email: sck@ekmelaw.com
Caroline Liebenguth
Email: legaldepartment@pacourts.us
(via CM/ECF)
3
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?