2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-9-2008 

# C onk lin v . Pur cel l Kr u g P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1646

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C onk l in v . P ur c e l l Kr u g " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1039. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1039The Honor abl e A. W a l l a c e Ta s hi m a , Se ni or Ci r c ui t Judge , Uni t e d St at e s Court of * Appe a l s for

the Ni nth Ci r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. 1 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No: 07- 1646 ST EP HE N G . CO NK LIN, Appe l l ant

v. P U R C E L L , K RU G & H A L L E R ; L E O N P . H A L L E R , E squ ire; B R IAN J. TY LE R, Es qu i r e ; J OHN W . PU RC EL L, Es qu i r e ; HO W ARD B . KRUG , Es qu i r e ; J OHN W . PU RC EL L, J R. , Es qu i r e ; J I LL M. W INE KA , Es qu i r e ; NI CH OL E M . ST AL EY O' GO RM AN , Es qu i r e ; EM C M OR TG AG E CORPORATI ON; RALENE RUYLE, Pr e s i de nt ; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVI CES, INC. ; W . LANCE ANDERSON, Pr e s i de nt ; FI DELI TY NATI ONAL FORECLOSURE S O L U T IO N S ; L A R RY D IN G M ANN , E squ ire; C L A Y C O R N E T T , P resid en t; GR EG ORY W HI TW OR TH , Ex e c ut i ve Vi c e Pr e s i de nt ; CH AS E B AN K O F TE XA S, fo rm e r l y

kn ow n a Te xa s Co mm e r c e Bank , N. A. ; W AL TE R V . SH IPLE Y; KR ISTINE M. AN TH OU ; DAN IEL J. BIRSIC, Esqu ir e;

GRENEN & BERSI C P. C. Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( Ci v. No. 05- c v- 01726) Di s tr i c t Judge : Hon. Yve tt e Kane B ef o re: M cK E E an dR E N D E L L , C ircu it Ju d g es, and TASHI MA, Se ni or

Ci r c ui t Judge * Subm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Mar c h 24, 2008 ( fi l e d: June 9, 2008 )2 OP INI ON McKE E, Circ uit Jud ge. St e phe n G. Conkl i n a

ppe a l s the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s or de r

di s m i s s i ng hi s s e c ond am e nde d c om

pl a i nt pur s uant t o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . That c om pl a i nt a l l e ge d that the de fe ndant s vi ol at e d fe de r a l and s t at e l aws r e gul at i ng de bt c ol l e c t i on and f o reclo su re p ro ceed in g s. H e also alleg edth at certain o f th e d ef en d an ts v io latedth e F air De bt Col l e c t i on Pr a c t i c e s Ac t , 15 U. S. C. § 1692 et se q . ( “FDC PA ”) , andthe Rac kete er I nfl ue nc e d and Corr

upt Or gani z at i ons Ac t , 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et se q . (“R IC O ”). H e also as se rt ed nu m er ou s c la im s for conspira cy and v iolati on s of 3 9 U .S.C. § 30 01 (h), (I ) ( m a i l i ng de c e pt i ve s ol i c i t at i ons ) , 39 U. S. C. §§ 3001, 3005 ( m a i l i ng fa l s e doc um e nt s for pu rposes of

ob ta ining m on ey

) and18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1 (use of f ra udulent s chem e t o colle ct de bt ) . I n a ddi t i on, Conkl i n a s s e rt e d c l a i m s unde r the Pe nns yl vani aFa i r

Cr e di t Ext e ns i on Uni form i ty

Ac t , 73 P. S. § 2270. 1 et

se q ( “ FCEUA” ) , and the Pe nns yl vani aUnfa i r Tr a de P ractices an dC o n su m er P ro tectio nL aw , 7 3 P .S . § 2 0 1 -1 (“U T P C P L ”). In a n u tsh ell, Co nk li n all eges that

the defendants, individu al ly and colle ct ivel y , violate d the federal an dstate law s recitedab o v e in co n n ectio nw ith th e f o reclo su re o f

a h o m e C o n k lin p u rch asedin1 9 9 7 w ith th e aido f a lo an w h ich h e ad m ittedw as ind ef au lt. In asm u ch as w e w rite p rim arily f o r th e p arties an dth e d istrict co u rt h as set f o rth the fa c t ua l and pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory of thi s c a s e , we fi nd i t

unne c e s s ary

t o r e s t at e the f actu al an dp ro cedu ral h isto ry h ere. Co nkli n v. Purce ll , Krug & Ha ller , 200 7 WL3

40 40 47 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 20 07 ). In it s tho roug h andwell -r ea soned o pinion , the distri ct court e xp la ined it s c on cl usion that Con klin fail ed to st at e any cl ai m s for wh ic h rel ie f co u ldb e g ran ted . G iv en th e d istrict co u rt’s an aly sis, th ere is little th at w e can ad dto e x p l a i nw h y

d e f e n d an t ’ s n u me r o u s a l l e g at i o n s s i mp l y d o n o t s t at e al e g a l c l a i m. A cco rd in g ly , w e w ill af

f irm th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd er d ism issin g d ef en d an t’s co m

p lain t s ubs t ant i a l l y

for the r e a s ons s e t

forth i n the c ourt ’ s Me m or andum and Opi ni on.