Willis-Mitchell v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 1:12-cv-01235-SEB-DML. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20160317b70
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SARAH EVANS BARKER , District Judge . The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' cross-motions (Dkts. 85 and 87) for summary judgment. The court finds that the motions should not be adjudicated at this time because (1) the court should not make a merits decision before notice is given to the class and the opt-out period has expired, to avoid the potential for a one-way intervention problem 1 and (2) the Seventh Circuit
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SARAH EVANS BARKER , District Judge . The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' cross-motions (Dkts. 85 and 87) for summary judgment. The court finds that the motions should not be adjudicated at this time because (1) the court should not make a merits decision before notice is given to the class and the opt-out period has expired, to avoid the potential for a one-way intervention problem 1 and (2) the Seventh Circuit'..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties' cross-motions (Dkts. 85 and 87) for summary judgment. The court finds that the motions should not be adjudicated at this time because (1) the court should not make a merits decision before notice is given to the class and the opt-out period has expired, to avoid the potential for a one-way intervention problem1 and (2) the Seventh Circuit's anticipated decision in Oliva v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Liebsker & Moore, LLC can be expected to inform the merits of the parties' arguments on summary judgment. Indeed, the plaintiffs have filed at least three motions to supplement their summary judgment arguments with authority from district courts whose decisions will be directly affected by the Oliva decision. Undoubtedly, both parties will want an opportunity to address Oliva when it is decided. The court will expect the parties' input regarding the effect of Oliva on the Marion County small claims court issue in this case.
Rather than allowing the cross-motions to sit stale on the court's docket and later requiring their supplementation, the court finds it more efficient to deny the motions without prejudice. When Oliva is decided, the court will set a schedule for the parties to renew motions for summary judgment and to address Oliva in their briefing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp., 523 F.2d 349, 353-54 (7th Cir. 1975) (a merits ruling before notice to the class creates a one-way intervention problem where "a potential class member could await a resolution of the merits of the claim before deciding whether or not to join the lawsuit").
Source: Leagle
