Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Santander Bank

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 2, 2018

JUNE TAYLOR, Plaintiff
v.
SANTANDER BANK, Defendant

          CONNER, C.J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 14)

          William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         On December 29, 2016, Plaintiff June Taylor (“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se action alleging that Defendant Santander Bank (“Defendant”) violated the Fair Debt Collections Act. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 14). For the reasons explained herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be DISMISSED without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collections Act. (Doc. 1). The Complaint, however, appeared to be incomplete and was not signed by Plaintiff.

         On January 20, 2017, the Court issued its Standing Practice Order, which advised Plaintiff that:

One type of pre-trial motion is a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The motion may be made by any party, with or without supporting affidavits. Under Rule 56(e) the affidavits may be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or further affidavits. The affidavits may also be supplemented by admissions on file and other appropriate evidentiary material.
Local Rule 56.1 requires a motion for summary judgment to be accompanied by a separate document containing a short and concise statement of material facts in numbered paragraphs. . . . The local rule further requires that the statements of material fact by both parties must include a reference to that part of the record that supports each statement.

(Doc. 2) (emphasis added).

         On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 4). On February 23, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP Motion, but ordered that service of the Complaint be held in abeyance until Plaintiff filed either a complete copy of her Complaint or an amended complaint. (Doc. 5).

         On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Exhibit D.” (Doc. 6). Exhibit D appears to be a letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant in March of 2015. Id. There is no Exhibit A, B, or C in the case record. On April 12, 2017, the Court, once again, instructed Plaintiff to file a complete copy of her Complaint or an amended complaint, and admonished her that failure to timely comply with the Court's Order could result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 7).

         On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8). Like the original Complaint, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was a single page, was not signed, and included a one-page exhibit-this time a copy of an April 2017 letter from Defendant addressed to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff did not sign her Amended Complaint. Id. On April 27, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file and sign a second amended complaint. (Doc. 9). The Court also observed, for Plaintiff's benefit, that her Amended Complaint did not “allege sufficient facts to state a legal claim of any sort, ” because it contained only conclusory legal conclusions. Id.

         On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is almost identical to her First Amended Complaint with two notable exceptions-it is signed, and it includes a complaint submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau along with a one-page document entitled “Investigation Report” attached as exhibits. In her Second Amended Complaint, under the heading “Nature of the Action” Plaintiff alleges that:

1. This is a Claim under The Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1607 et seq), in connection with violation of the Fair Debt ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.