Opinion
Civil Action 23-2433-KSM
03-28-2024
GARY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, Defendant.
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW this 28th day of March, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20), Plaintiff's opposition brief (Doc. No. 23), Defendant's reply brief (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff's surreply brief (Doc. No. 25), Plaintiff's Motion for summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21), and Defendant's opposition brief (Doc. No. 22), it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims premised on violations of the federal criminal code, the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b(1), 1692b(2), 1692b(5), 1692c(a), 1692d(2), 1692e(10), and 1692j(a). The Court enters JUDGMENT in Stillman Law's favor as to these claims.
b. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims premised on violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(c) and 1692(e)(2)(A).
3. Plaintiff's remaining claims are REFERRED TO ARBITRATION. The arbitration clerk shall schedule an arbitration hearing. All counsel are attached for the arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.