Conklin v. Purcell Krug , 282 F. App'x 193 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    6-9-2008
    Conklin v. Purcell Krug
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-1646
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "Conklin v. Purcell Krug" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1039.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1039
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No: 07-1646
    STEPHEN G. CONKLIN,
    Appellant
    v.
    PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER; LEON P. HALLER, Esquire; BRIAN J.
    TYLER, Esquire; JOHN W. PURCELL, Esquire; HOWARD B. KRUG,
    Esquire; JOHN W. PURCELL, JR., Esquire; JILL M. WINEKA,
    Esquire; NICHOLE M. STALEY O'GORMAN, Esquire; EMC MORTGAGE
    CORPORATION; RALENE RUYLE, President; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
    INC.; W. LANCE ANDERSON, President; FIDELITY NATIONAL FORECLOSURE
    SOLUTIONS; LARRY DINGMANN, Esquire; CLAY CORNETT, President;
    GREGORY WHITWORTH, Executive Vice President; CHASE BANK OF
    TEXAS, formerly known a Texas Commerce Bank, N.A.; WALTER V.
    SHIPLEY; KRISTINE M. ANTHOU; DANIEL J. BIRSIC, Esquire;
    GRENEN & BERSIC P.C.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (Civ. No. 05-cv-01726)
    District Judge: Hon. Yvette Kane
    Before: McKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,
    and TASHIMA, Senior Circuit Judge*
    Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    March 24, 2008
    (filed: June 9, 2008 )
    *
    The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of
    Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    1
    OPINION
    McKEE, Circuit Judge.
    Stephen G. Conklin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second
    amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). That complaint alleged
    that the defendants violated federal and state laws regulating debt collection and
    foreclosure proceedings. He also alleged that certain of the defendants violated the Fair
    Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the Racketeer
    Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). He also
    asserted numerous claims for conspiracy and violations of 39 U.S.C. § 3001(h), (I)
    (mailing deceptive solicitations), 39 U.S.C. §§ 3001, 3005 (mailing false documents for
    purposes of obtaining money) and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (use of fraudulent scheme to collect
    debt). In addition, Conklin asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
    Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. § 2270.1 et seq (“FCEUA”), and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
    Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 (“UTPCPL”). In a nutshell,
    Conklin alleges that the defendants, individually and collectively, violated the federal
    and state laws recited above in connection with the foreclosure of a home Conklin
    purchased in 1997 with the aid of a loan which he admitted was in default.
    Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties and the district court has set forth
    the factual and procedural history of this case, we find it unnecessary to restate the
    factual and procedural history here. Conklin v. Purcell, Krug & Haller, 
    2007 WL 2
    404047 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2007). In its thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district
    court explained its conclusion that Conklin failed to state any claims for which relief
    could be granted. Given the district court’s analysis, there is little that we can add to
    explain why defendant’s numerous allegations simply do not state a legal claim.
    Accordingly, we will affirm the district court’s order dismissing defendant’s complaint
    substantially for the reasons set forth in the court’s Memorandum and Opinion.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1646

Citation Numbers: 282 F. App'x 193

Filed Date: 6/9/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023