Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):
Here are the materials in the matter of Pennachietti v. Mansfield, 17-cv-02582 (E. Penn. Dec. 11, 2017):
- Doc. 1 – Complaint
- Doc. 5 – Motion to Dismiss
- Doc. 7 – Response in Opposition of Motion to Dismiss
- Doc. 8 – Memorandum of Law in Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Doc. 9 – Memorandum
Link to deja vu suit.
Download memorandum here.
Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in Finn v. Great Plains Lending (E.D. Penn. Feb. 23, 2016) for lack of jurisdiction.
In both Hotleva and Chehalis, the actions of the non-party would preclude the relief sought. In contrast, here the relief sought by the Plaintiffs does not require the non-party tribes to do or refrain from doing anything. For example, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the money earned by the Defendants only, not the money the tribes have earned, through the alleged scheme. FAC p. 40. The Plaintiff is not seeking a declaration that the contracts themselves are illegal, but rather a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct violates a number of state and federal laws.FAC p. 39. The Chippewa Cree were engaged in consumer lending prior to their partnership with Think Finance and, since the tribes are not bound by the outcome of this case, they would be permitted to continue that business. The tribes continuing their business (without the services of the Defendants) would in no way limit the relief the Plaintiffs seek. See Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 16 F.Supp.3d 605, 615 (M.D.N.C. 2014) (“[J]udgment…will not prohibit the lenders from lending money or from relying on other mechanisms to collect on their loans.”). The relief the OAG seeks is thus not “hollow.” The tribes are not required underRule 19(a)(1)(a).
Here is the complaint in Bynon v. Mansfield (E.D. Pa.):
The defendants in this case are conspirators in a usury scam. The defendants charged plaintiff Breanda Bynon interest at the rate of 182.02% A.P.R. on a $5,000 loan. Ms. Bynon paid defendants about $15,000, but defendants applied all of the money to usurious interest and then repossessed her vehicle claiming nonpayment. Ms. Bynon files this complaint for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (“Act 6”), 41 P.S. § 201 et seq., and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),
Sovereign Lending Solutions, LLC (“Sovereign”), is a loan company wholly owned by the Lac Vieu Desert Bank of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian Tribe (”Tribe”), and incorporated under tribal law. Sovereign originated the loan to Ms. Bynon, but is not named as a party because it is protected from liability under the doctrine of tribal immunity.
Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):
Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.
Here are the materials in Hanover Insurance Co. v. Urban Outfitters (E.D. Pa.):