HYMAN v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE et al
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Capital One and Commonwealth Recovery's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41 ) is DENIED. 2. The Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 39 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Count V, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; b. The Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Count VI. 3. In addition, the following claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: a. All claims against the Pennsylvania State Police; b. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Col. Blocker and John Doe Troopers 1-10 in their individual capacities. 4. Accordingly, the Pennsylvania State Police, Col. Blocker, and John Doe Troopers 1-10 are dismissed as defendants, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/23/2018. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGELA HYMAN,
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-89
)
)
Plaintiff,
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
v.
)
)
CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE,
COMMONWEALTH RECOVERY
GROUP, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE, COL. TYREE C. BLOCKER,
MICHAEL MORRIS, BRYAN DEVLIN,
JOHN DOE TROOPERS 1-10,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Introduction
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss. The first motion was filed by
Defendants Commonwealth Recovery Group, Inc. ("Commonwealth Recovery") and Capital
One Auto Finance ("Capital One"), who move to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Amended
Complaint and to strike Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. (See ECF No. 41.) The second motion
was filed by the Pennsylvania State Police, Col. Tyree C. Blocker, Trooper Michael Morris,
Trooper Bryan Delvin, and John Doe Troopers 1-10 (collectively the "Commonwealth
Defendants"), who move to dismiss Counts V and VI of the Amended Complaint. (See ECF No.
39.)
The motions have been fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 40, 43, 52, 53) and are ripe for
disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Capital One and Commonwealth
1
Recovery's motion to dismiss in its entirety (ECF No. 41). The Court will grant in part, and deny
in part, the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 39).
II.
Jurisdiction
The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over her related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise
to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
III.
Background
A.
Factual Background1
This case involves the repossession of a car. In 2014, Plaintiff purchased a new Toyota
Corolla. (ECF No. 27 at
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?