JARZYNA v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P.

Civil Action No. 10-4191.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P. et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Nature of Suit: 370 Other Fraud
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

STEPHANIE A. BLAIR, Special Master, Pro Se.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, represented by FRANCIS J. FARINA , JACOB T. THIELEN , O'KEEFE MILLER & THIELEN PC, JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE , O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C. & RICHARD F. KLINEBURGER, III , KLINEBURGER & NUSSEY.

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Defendant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant, represented by RONALD S. CANTER , THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC.

CAROL BLOOM, Movant, represented by RONALD S. CANTER , THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC.

MICHAEL SOBOTA, Movant, represented by RONALD S. CANTER , THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC.

SHERIE BOUCHEL, Movant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

ROBERT FARNAN, Movant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC., Cross Claimant, represented by RONALD S. CANTER , THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC.

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Cross Defendant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Counter Claimant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Counter Defendant, represented by JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE , O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C..

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Counter Claimant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Counter Defendant, represented by JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE , O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C..

HOME PROPERTIES, L.P., Counter Claimant, represented by CANDIDUS K. DOUGHERTY , SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Counter Defendant, represented by JACOB T. THIELEN , O'KEEFE MILLER & THIELEN PC & JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE , O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C..


ORDER

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 287) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s response in opposition thereto (ECF No. 292); Plaintiff's Motion for Directed Order as to Class Certification (ECF No. 319) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s response in opposition thereto (ECF No. 326); Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production (ECF No. 353); Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Part of Testimony (ECF No. 363); Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 355) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 364); Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Judgments and Claims and for Sanctions (ECF No. 356) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s response in opposition thereto (ECF No. 360); and Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Judgments and Claims and for Sanctions (ECF No. 362); and following a hearing held on the record with counsel for both parties on October 17, 2016, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 287) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Directed Order as to Class Certification (ECF No. 319) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum to Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Judgments and Claims and for Sanctions (ECF No. 362) is DENIED.1

4. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production (ECF No. 353) and Defendant Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Part of Testimony (ECF No. 363) are DENIED as moot.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court considered the contents of Plaintiff's proposed reply memorandum, attached to the motion, in disposing of all motions addressed in this order.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases