Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00652/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00652-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL SILVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION 

ASSISTANCE AGENCY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00652-PJH 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 67

Before the court is defendant’s second motion for summary judgment. Having 

reviewed the parties papers and evaluated the parties’ positions regarding the Ninth 

Circuit’s memorandum disposition, the court has determined that the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision forecloses the issues raised in defendant’s motion. 

On March 31, 2016, this court granted defendant’s first motion for summary 

judgment holding that the “retroactivity issue [was] dispositive” and declining to reach the 

issues of consent, use of an ATDS, and willfulness. See generally Dkt. 52. Though the 

district court did not address the latter three issues, plaintiff’s subsequent appeal raised 

and fully briefed those issues as well as the retroactivity issue. On December 13, 2017, 

the Ninth Circuit reversed this court on the retroactivity issue and also “conclude[d] that 

disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on each of the alternative 

grounds presented.” Dkt. 60 at 4. Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment 

does not raise any new factual issues that were not before the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, 

the court is not persuaded that the change in the law applicable in the D.C. Circuit is 

sufficient to justify ignoring the explicit language of the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum

Case 4:14-cv-00652-PJH Document 71 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

disposition in this case. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is TERMINATED. 

The parties shall meet and confer and submit a stipulation and proposed order

setting a briefing schedule for plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2018

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00652-PJH Document 71 Filed 06/06/18 Page 2 of 2