IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY BETH FRANKENFIELD, : CIVIL NO. 4:14-CV-1112 

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Kane)

:

v. :

: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MICROBILT CORPORATION, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

This case involves a claimbrought by a consumer against a credit agency under

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction

Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. §1681. The plaintiff’s complaint, which was initially filed

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County on May 9, 2014, makes two

claims under these federal consumer credit laws. First, it is alleged that the defendant

violated 15 U.S.C. §1681g(a)(1)(A), by failing to redact the plaintiff’s socialsecurity

number fromcorrespondence sent to the plaintiff, despite a request by the plaintiff for

redaction of this information. The plaintiff’s complaint then goes on to allege that

the defendant also violated the FCRA and FACTA by failing to provide the plaintiff

as a consumer with a copy of a summary of the consumer’s rights, as required by 15

U.S.C. §1681g(c)(2), which states that: “A consumer reporting agency shall provide

Case 4:14-cv-01112-YK-MCC Document 31 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 3
to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this

section– [a] summary of rights. . . .” Id. As a remedy for these alleged violations of

these federal consumer protection laws, the plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive

damages, along with attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

At the request of the defendant, we stayed the above-captioned action pending

a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-

1339, which had granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address the following

question:

“Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who

suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke

the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action

based on a bare violation of a federal statute.” Question Presented,

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015),

http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-01339qp.pdf. (Doc. 103.) 

The Supreme Court has now ruled in Spokeo. Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540

(May 16, 2016). Given this ruling, the stay previously entered in this case was

LIFTED and the parties were directed to consult and confer and submit a joint status

report on or before June 21, 2016, recommending what course of action this Court

should follow in light of Spokeo.

We have now received this status report which indicates, in part, that the

defendant intends to move to dismiss the complaint on standing grounds in light of

2

Case 4:14-cv-01112-YK-MCC Document 31 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 3
Spokeo. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: With respect to this proposed

motion the defendantshall comply with the requirements Local Rule 7.5 by filing the

motion, and a brief in support of this motion, on or before July 15, 2016. The

plaintiff shall file a response to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.6 on or

before July 29, 2016. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7 the defendant may then file a reply

brief on or before August 12, 2016. All briefs must conform to the requirements

prescribed by Local Rule 7.8. In the meanwhile we will STAY further discovery

pending receipt and resolution of this motion. In thissetting, we conclude, consistent

with settled case law, that: “[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution

of a potentially dispositive motion where the motion ‘appear[s] to have substantial

grounds' or, stated another way, ‘do[es] not appear to be without foundation in law.’”

Johnson v. New York Univ. School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 

So ordered this 23d day of June 2016.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson 

Martin C. Carlson

United States Magistrate Judge 

3

Case 4:14-cv-01112-YK-MCC Document 31 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 3