UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

DONJA SEAWELL ) 

on behalf of herself and all others )

similarly situated ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 05-CV-479 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

UNIVERSAL FIDELITY ) CLASS ACTION 

CORPORATION ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

ORDER

 AND NOW, this day of 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff 

Donja Seawell’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply Memorandum of Law in response to 

Defendant Universal Fidelity Corporation’s Reply in Further Support of Its Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Surreply Memorandum of Law, attached as Exhibit A to her 

Motion, is deemed filed of record. 

 

 

 Pollak, S. J. 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

DONJA SEAWELL ) 

on behalf of herself and all others )

similarly situated ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 05-CV-479 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

UNIVERSAL FIDELITY ) CLASS ACTION 

CORPORATION ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY MEMORANDUM 

OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL FIDELITY 

CORPORATION’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Donja Seawell, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves this 

Court for leave to allow her to file the attached Surreply Memorandum of Law in 

response to Defendant Universal Fidelity Corporation’s Reply Brief in Support of Its 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the above matter. Good cause exists for the 

filing of the attached Surreply Memorandum as Universal Fidelity Corporation seeks an 

alternative result in its reply than it did in the original motion for partial summary 

judgment, and presents new evidence to this Court that may not properly be considered 

and is inadmissible.

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 8
Respectfully submitted, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

 

BY: /s/ JOHN SOUMILAS 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS 

 MARK D. MAILMAN 

 JOHN SOUMILAS 

Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

100 South Broad Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

Dated: March 19, 2007 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

DONJA SEAWELL ) 

on behalf of herself and all others )

similarly situated ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 05-CV-479 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

UNIVERSAL FIDELITY ) CLASS ACTION 

CORPORATION ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Universal Fidelity Corporation moved for partial summary judgment 

on April 24, 2006, arguing that the “maximum amount that can be awarded to the class is 

$3,550.” (See Docket Number 27). In her opposition to Defendant’s motion for partial 

summary judgment, Plaintiff explained why Defendant’s motion must be denied and that 

any calculation to the statutory recovery for the class must be made at the time of trial 

based upon a broad range of evidence concerning Defendant’s financial status. (See

Docket Number 33). Defendant sought leave to file a reply brief in further support of its 

motion for partial summary judgment, which was granted by order of this Court dated 

March 8, 2007. (See Docket Number 50). 

In that reply brief, Defendant now argues for the first time that it is not seeking to 

limit the class’s recovery to any particular financial amount, but only a ruling as to “how” 

Defendant’s net worth is to be calculated. (Defendant’s Reply Brief at 4). Defendant’s 

new position is simply specious. First, Defendant’s original motion clearly seeks to limit 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 5 of 8
the class’s recovery to a specific monetary figure, namely “$3,550.” That is what 

Defendant argues in its original motion and that is what it articulates in its supporting 

affidavit and proposed order. Moreover, the issue of how net worth is to be calculated, 

although an important issue as Plaintiff explains in her response in opposition, is not 

dispositive of any claim in this case. The method itself, therefore, is not a proper subject 

for a motion for summary judgment. The facts as to “how” Defendant maintains its 

financial records and whether that method properly reflects its net worth for FDCPA 

purposes is very much contested in this case, and thus cannot be resolved at the summary 

judgment stage. 

Furthermore, this Court may not take into consideration, either for purposes of 

summary judgment or for trial, Plaintiff’s demand letter dated December 13, 2005, which 

Defendant marks as Exhibit “B” to its motion seeking leave to file a reply brief. As is 

plain from the face of the letter, it is written for purposes of compromise and entitled to 

the protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 408. It is certainly not factual evidence in 

this case or a factual basis upon which to make any legal rulings, either at summary 

judgment or any other stage. See Fed. R. Evid. 408. Accordingly, this Court must 

discount Defendant’s arguments in its reply to the extent that they relate in any way to 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 6 of 8
Plaintiff’s demand letter dated December 13, 2005. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

 

BY: /s/ JOHN SOUMILAS 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS 

 MARK D. MAILMAN 

 JOHN SOUMILAS 

Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

100 South Broad Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

 

Dated: March 19, 2007 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, John Soumilas, hereby certify that, on this date, I caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Leave to File a Surreply to be served electronically 

in accordance with this Court’s ECF procedures, upon the following individual: 

Mr. Norman W. Briggs, Esquire 

Frey, Petrakis, Deeb, Blum, Briggs & Mitts, PC.. 

1601 Market Street 

Suite 2600 

Philadelphia PA 19103 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

 /s/ JOHN SOUMILAS 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS 

MARK D. MAILMAN 

JOHN SOUMILAS 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

 100 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

DATE: March 19, 2007 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 53 Filed 03/19/07 Page 8 of 8