BADGER v. PREIT ASSOCIATES, LP

Filing 23

ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that 8 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mitchell's 19 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court, as MODIFIED by this Order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 2/17/17. (bdb)

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

JOSIE BADGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs
PREIT ASSOClA TES, LP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-1431

ORDER

AND NOW, this 171h day of February, 2017, after the Plaintiff, Josie Badger, filed
the above-captioned civil action, and after a Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Defendant,
PREIT Associates, LP, and after a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) (" R & R") was
filed by the Uniited States Magistrate Judge granting the parties a period of time after being served
with a copy of the R&R to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the
objections filed by the Defendant and the response to those objections filed by the Plaintiff, and
upon this Court's de novo review of the Motion to Dismis and the record upon the docket, and
upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's R&R, which is adopted as the Opinion of this
Court, as modified by this Order1,

1

The Court concludes that the R&R's analysis of the standing issue asserted by the Defendant in the Motion to
Dismiss appropriately addresses the matters raised in such regards given the allegations of the Complaint, R&R at 712, and that in these circumstances, the R&R appropriately concluded that the "four factor" analysis des.cribed in
Anderson v. Macy's, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 531, 538 (W.D. Pa. 2013) is a non-exclusive mode of analyzing those issues
in a given case. The R&R's consideration of the "intent to return" and "deterrent effect" tests was an appropriate
analytical tool for the consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on such grounds, and the R&R will be
adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Further, from this Court's perspective, to the extent the Defendant's Motion
sought to limit the scope of discovery as part of the relief sought in its Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate Judge
properly denied such relief as part of disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. Matters involving the scope and timing of
permitted discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 are of course appropriate for consideration and disposition as part of the
overall case management process, and may be further addressed by the Court at that juncture.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is denied
without prejudice, and its Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 14) is denied.

Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge