UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

THOMAS WRIGHT,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

ELITE REVENUE SOLUTIONS, 

LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-cv-00597

(SAPORITO, J.)

(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM 

This matter comes before the court on three recently filed pro se

motions for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive 

relief. Doc. 27; Doc. 31; Doc. 34.

This action was originally commenced by the plaintiff, Thomas 

Wright, when he lodged his original pro se complaint with the clerk for 

filing on April 7, 2023. Doc. 1. The original complaint was accompanied 

by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for a 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 2; Doc. 

3. After the court denied the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in this action, having found that he had adequate resources to pay the 

requisite filing fee, Thomas Wright paid the fee and the original 

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 15
- 2 -

complaint was deemed filed on December 8, 2023. Doc. 8; Doc. 9. The 

court also denied the plaintiff’s first pro se motion for a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 6.

The original complaint appeared to invoke this court’s diversity 

jurisdiction, alleging that Thomas Wright was a citizen and resident of 

North Carolina, and alleging that the several defendants were citizens of 

Pennsylvania. Based on various state-law procedural deficiencies, the 

plaintiff sought to enjoin a scheduled sheriff’s sale of real property in 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, or, in the alternative, he sought an award 

of damages. The property at issue consisted of two adjacent parcels of 

land that together comprised a 150-acre family farm allegedly devised to 

Thomas Wright and his non-party brother, Adolph Richard Ott Wright, 

as tenants in common upon the death of their father, William T. Wright.1

1 We note that Adolph Wright is not named as a party to this action. 

His inclusion as a party would have destroyed diversity jurisdiction, as 

he apparently resides on the farm, making him a domiciliary and citizen 

of Pennsylvania. See generally Wright v. Vangorder, No. 3:21-cv-00187, 

2021 WL 11442814, at *4–6 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2021) (finding that Adolph 

Wright was a domiciliary and citizen of Pennsylvania for diversity 

jurisdiction purposes), R. & R. adopted, 2021 WL 11431937 (M.D. Pa. 

June 22, 2021). For what it is worth, Adolph Wright has separately 

pursued his own efforts to litigate the sheriff’s sale and other claims

concerning the property in both state and federal courts, with little 

(continued on next page)

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 15
- 3 -

Based on public records, the family farm appears originally to have 

been a single 150-acre parcel situated in Conyngham Township, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania, to which the county had assigned a property index 

number (“PIN”) of 09-N5-00A-008-000. In October 1983, it appears to 

have been conveyed from William Wright to Adolph Wright and the 

success. See Wright v. Elite Revenue Sols., LLC, No. 3:22-CV-02079, 2023 

WL 3325179 (M.D. Pa. May 9, 2023) (finding that Adolph Wright’s 

original complaint had failed to state a claim and directing him to file an 

amended complaint); Wright v. Elite Revenue Sols., LLC, No. 3:22-CV02079, 2024 WL 327231 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (finding that Adolph 

Wright’s amended complaint had failed to state a claim and directing him 

to file a second amended complaint); Wright v. Elite Revenue Sols., LLC, 

No. 3:22-CV-02079, 2024 WL 1548717 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2024) 

(recommending dismissal of Adolph Wright’s second amended complaint 

for failure to state a claim), R. & R. adopted, 2024 WL 1533664 (M.D. Pa. 

Apr. 9, 2024); Keller v. Wright, No. 3:22-CV-01921, 2023 WL 4356076 

(M.D. Pa. May 16, 2023) (recommending remand to state court of 

foreclosure action removed by Adolph Wright), R. & R. adopted, 2023 WL 

4353701 (M.D. Pa. July 5, 2023); Upset Tax Sale Luzerne Cnty. Tax Claim 

Bureau v. Wright, No. 454 C.D. 2023, 2024 WL 4684344 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 

Nov. 6, 2024) (per curiam) (quashing appeal from non-appealable 

interlocutory orders entered by a state trial court with respect to an upset 

tax sale to dispose of the Wright family farm). These several court 

decisions do not address the ownership interest of Thomas Wright at all.

For the sake of clarity, we further note that the 2022 upset tax sale giving 

rise to the Commonwealth Court decision was an entirely different 

proceeding from the 2023 sheriff’s sale giving rise to this case, stemming 

instead from state-court mortgage foreclosure proceedings, which were 

briefly removed to this court by Adolph Wright before being remanded.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 15
- 4 -

unnamed beneficiary of a trust, presumably Thomas Wright,2 as tenants 

in common.3 In July 1992, the 150-acre parcel was subdivided, carving 

out a smaller 2.53-acre parcel, thereafter known as “Lot 3” of the 

“Coleman/Wright Subdivision,” which included a dwelling known as 343 

Cemetery Road, Wapwallopen, PA 18660, and a deed was recorded 

conveying fee-simple ownership of Lot 3 to Adolph Wright.4 The county 

assigned a PIN of 09-N5-00A-08A-000 to Lot 3, and the remaining 147-

acre parcel continued to be referenced as PIN 09-N5-00A-008-000. In 

March 2015, a deed was recorded conveying legal title in the larger parcel 

from Adolph Wright and the aforementioned trust5 as tenants in common 

2 The county property record names Adolph Wright, individually, 

and two co-trustees—Jean Coleman and Adolph Wright—as grantees.

3 See Luzerne Cnty. (Pa.) Recorder of Deeds, LANDEX Webstore, 

https://www.landex.com/webstore (choose “search” from top menu, select 

“Luzerne” from counties menu, and search for “Instrument No. 305660” 

or “Book 2112, Page 287”) (deed recorded Oct. 7, 1983) (last visited Nov. 

26, 2024). A district court may take judicial notice of publicly recorded 

property records such as this. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 201; Gagliardi 

v. Kratzenberg, 188 Fed. App’x 86, 88 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) 

(taking judicial notice of publicly recorded deeds reflecting property 

ownership); Hynoski v. Columbia Cnty. Redevelopment Auth., 941 F. 

Supp. 2d 547, 556 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (taking judicial notice of publicly 

recorded real estate transfer records).

4 See LANDEX Webstore (“Instrument No. 2927095” or “Book 2427, 

Page 466”) (deed recorded July 30, 1992).

5 In conveying the trust’s interest, the county property records 

indicate that Adolph Wright did so as surviving co-trustee.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 15
- 5 -

to Adolph Wright and Thomas Wright as tenants in common.6 In 

subsequent years, Adolph Wright appears to have conveyed his interest 

in both parcels to one or both of two trust entities, the Adolph R.O. 

Wright-El Trust and the Tamazight Temple University & Trust, as to both 

of which Adolph Wright is apparently the trust beneficiary.7

At the time when the original complaint was filed in this federal 

civil action on April 7, 2023, the sheriff’s sale was scheduled to take place 

one week later on April 14, 2023. In light of objections filed in state court 

by Adolph Wright, the sheriff’s sale was apparently postponed. 

Ultimately, however, the sheriff’s sale was conducted on December 1, 

2023.8 Adolph Wright’s interest in both parcels was purchased at the 

6 See LANDEX Webstore (“Instrument No. 201512079” or “Book 

3015, Page 44545”) (deed recorded Mar. 12, 2015).

7 See LANDEX Webstore (“Instrument No. 201517997” or “Book 

3015, Page 65565”) (deed recorded Apr. 16, 2015); id. (“Instrument No. 

201756460” or “Book 3017, Page 197807”) (deed recorded Oct. 2, 2017); 

id. (“Instrument 201840357” or “Book 3018, Page 140064”) (deed recorded 

July 27, 2018). 8 See Luzerne Cnty. (Pa.) Sheriff’s Dep’t, Notice of Sheriff’s Sale, 

No. 5055/2022 (Dec. 1, 2023), http://sheriffsale.luzernecounty.org/Sheriff

.Salelisting/PropertySales/Poster/643157 (last visited Nov. 26, 2024). See 

generally Fed. R. Evid. 201; Kan v. Verdera Cmty. Ass’n, No. 2:22-cv00348, 2024 WL 3861762, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024) (taking 

judicial notice of publicly available notice of sheriff’s sale of real 

property); Johnson v. Purzycki, No. 17-1225, 2017 WL 5957106, at *1 (D. 

(continued on next page)

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 15
- 6 -

sheriff’s sale by David Keller.9 On January 22, 2024, a sheriff’s deed was 

Del. Dec. 1, 2017) (taking judicial notice that real property was sold at a 

sheriff sale on a particular date).

9 Keller is a named defendant in this action, but he has not entered 

an appearance and the record reflects no proof of service on him. On 

March 27, 2024, the plaintiff filed a certificate indicating that, on March 

20, 2024, he had mailed a copy of the original complaint to Keller and 

hand delivered a copy of the original complaint to an attorney who had 

previously represented Keller in other litigation. Neither of these 

attempts constitute effective service of original process. See United 

States v. $184,505.01 in U.S. Currency, 72 F.3d 1160, 1164 (3d Cir. 1995) 

(holding that service of civil summons and complaint on defendant’s 

criminal defense counsel, who had not entered an appearance as counsel 

of record for the defendant in the civil action, did not constitute effective 

service of original process); Nanyonga v. I.N.S., 200 F.R.D. 503, 505 (M.D. 

Pa. 2001) (“Unless an individual defendant waives service under Rule 

4(d)(2), service cannot be by mail. And while Rule 4(e)(1) allows service 

under the rules of the state where the district court is located, 

Pennsylvania does not allow service by mail upon individuals either.”)

(citation omitted); Staudte v. Abrahams, 172 F.R.D. 155, 155 (E.D. Pa. 

1997) (“Except where a waiver has been obtained, the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure do not provide for service of original process by mail, 

including certified mail.”); In re Kouterick, 161 B.R. 755, 759 (Bankr. 

D.N.J. 1993) (“[O]ne cannot serve initial process on an attorney for a 

party unless the attorney agrees to accept service after authorization 

from the party. Moreover, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because an 

attorney has represented a client in one case, they will automatically be 

representing the client in subsequent cases regarding the same issues.”).

These particular efforts, however, might be adequate to satisfy the more 

relaxed notice requirement of Rule 65, provided Keller has received 

actual notice of the plaintiff’s motions for interim injunctive relief. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (“The [preliminary injunctive] order binds only 

[the parties and certain related persons] who receive actual notice of it 

by personal service or otherwise . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also

Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, S.A., 569 F.2d 300, 302 (5th Cir. 

(continued on next page)

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 15
- 7 -

recorded conveying legal title for Adolph Wright’s interest in both parcels 

to Keller.10 The next day, January 23, 2024, Keller commenced an action 

in ejectment against Adolph Wright, seeking to dispossess him of the 

property to which Keller had acquired legal title at the sheriff’s sale.11

Notably, the sheriff’s deed does not appear to indicate any conveyance of 

Thomas Wright’s interest as tenant in common with respect to the larger, 

147-acre parcel, and Thomas Wright is not named as a defendant to the 

action in ejectment brought by Keller.

Meanwhile, in this case, the court entered an order giving notice to 

Thomas Wright that, pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), this action would be 

dismissed for failure to perfect service of process if he did not file proof of 

1978) (per curiam) (“Rule 65(a) does not require service of process. The 

Rule does require notice prior to issuance of the order in question.”); 

Salita Promotions Corp. v. Ergashev, 500 F. Supp. 3d 648, 652 (E.D. Mich. 

2020) (“The notice required by Rule 65 is not equivalent to formal service 

of process.”).

10 See LANDEX Webstore (“Instrument No. 202403340” or “Book 

3024, Page 11460”) (sheriff’s deed recorded Jan. 22, 2024). 11 See Keller v. Wright, No. 2024-00660 (Luzerne Cnty. (Pa.) Ct. 

Com. Pl. filed Jan. 23, 2024); see also Doc. 27, at 4–5 (copy of docket 

sheet). A district court, of course, may properly take judicial notice of 

state and federal court records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Sands v. 

McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007); Ernst v. Child & Youth 

Servs. of Chester Cnty., 108 F.3d 486, 498–99 (3d Cir. 1997); 

Pennsylvania v. Brown, 373 F.2d 771, 778 (3d Cir. 1967).

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 15
- 8 -

service on or before March 22, 2024. Doc. 10. On March 20, 2024, Thomas 

Wright filed his amended complaint, the currently operative pleading in 

this matter, as a matter of course. Doc. 11; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

In his amended complaint, Thomas Wright now appeared to invoke this 

court’s federal question jurisdiction, asserting poorly articulated civil 

rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments.12 For relief, the amended complaint sought an 

award of damages only. On April 1, 2024, a summons was issued to the 

plaintiff for service of the amended complaint on each of the named 

defendants. Doc. 16.

On August 13, 2024, this court entered an order giving notice to 

Thomas Wright that, pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), this action would be 

dismissed for failure to perfect service of process if he did not file proof of 

service of the amended complaint on or before September 3, 2024. Doc. 

19. On September 3, 2024, the plaintiff filed proof of service with respect 

to three of the seventeen named defendants: (1) Samuel Falcone Jr., Esq.; 

(2) the Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau; and (3) Elite Revenue 

12 The plaintiff appears to be asserting due process and equal 

protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not entirely 

clear how the other constitutional amendments are implicated.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 8 of 15
- 9 -

Solutions, LLC. Doc. 20; Doc. 21; Doc. 22.13

On September 23, 2024, several Luzerne County government 

defendants spontaneously entered their appearances through counsel 

and moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doc. 24; see also Doc. 25. That motion 

remains pending before this court.14

In recent weeks, however, the plaintiff has filed a series of three pro 

se motions for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive 

relief. Doc. 27; Doc. 31; Doc. 34. All three motions seek the same relief: A 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction forbidding David 

Keller, or any other defendant, from evicting Adolph Wright from his 

longtime residence—the property to which Keller had recently acquired 

legal title through a sheriff’s sale and deed. The urgency of these motions 

13 The plaintiff also filed proof of service of the summons and 

amended complaint on a non-party individual: Gregory S. Skibitsky, Esq. 

Doc. 23. Although Skibitsky had been a named defendant in the original 

complaint, he was omitted as a named defendant in the amended 

complaint. As a consequence, he was terminated as a party-defendant.

Skibitsky has, however, entered his appearance as counsel of record for 

several named defendants who are county government officials.

14 The plaintiff has not yet filed a brief in opposition to the motion 

to dismiss. He was recently granted an extension of time to do so. Doc. 

36.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 9 of 15
- 10 -

appears to stem from an August 19, 2024, decision by the state trial court 

granting judgment in favor of Keller in the action in ejectment he had 

brought against Adolph Wright,15 and a writ of possession subsequently 

issued in favor of Keller by the prothonotary on August 21, 2024.16

Preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature and should 

issue only in limited circumstances. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & 

Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426–27 (3d Cir. 1994). Moreover, 

issuance of such relief is at the discretion of the trial judge. Merrill Lynch, 

Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Chamberlain, 145 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 

(M.D. Pa. 2001). In determining whether to grant a motion seeking 

preliminary injunctive relief, courts in the Third Circuit consider the 

following four factors: “(1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) 

irreparable harm resulting from a denial of the relief; (3) the harm to the 

non-moving party if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest.” United 

States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d 696, 699 (M.D. Pa. 2003); see also Bieros v. 

Nicola, 857 F. Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (“The standards for a 

15 A copy of the state trial court’s order granting judgment is 

attached to the plaintiff’s first motion for a temporary restraining order 

or preliminary injunctive relief. See Doc. 27, at 9–10.

16 A copy of the writ of possession is attached to the plaintiff’s first 

motion as well. See Doc. 27, at 8.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 10 of 15
- 11 -

temporary restraining order are the same as those for a preliminary 

injunction.”).17 It is the moving party who bears the burden of satisfying 

these factors. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 699. “Only if the movant produces 

evidence sufficient to convince the trial judge that all four factors favor 

preliminary relief should the injunction issue.” Opticians Ass’n of Am. v. 

Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F. 2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (emphasis 

added).

Although it involves the same real property and one of the same 

adverse parties, the state action in ejectment concerns the efforts of 

David Keller, holder of legal title to the land at issue, to evict the 

plaintiff’s brother, Adolph Wright, possessor of that land.18 Meanwhile, 

17 While the pro se motions seek both forms of interim injunctive 

relief, the distinctions between the two procedural vehicles is immaterial 

to this decision. See generally Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 956 F.3d 

156, 160 (3d Cir. 2020) (“A preliminary injunction must be issued with 

notice to the adverse party. A TRO, in contrast, may be issued without 

notice where it is clearly shown that immediate and irreparable injury, 

loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be 

heard in opposition.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); 

Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 

1267 (D.N.M. 2008) (“The primary difference between a TRO and a 

preliminary injunction is that a TRO may issue without notice to the 

opposing party and that a TRO is of limited duration . . . .”). 18 As alluded to in our discussion of the factual background above, 

it appears that Keller has obtained fee-simple legal title to the 2.53-acre 

(continued on next page)

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 11 of 15
- 12 -

this federal civil action concerns the efforts of Thomas Wright, who 

currently or formerly held a half-interest in legal title to some of that 

land (the larger 147-acre parcel), to secure an award of damages from 

David Keller and several other defendants for the allegedly 

unconstitutional alienation of his legal title to that land.19 The conduct 

alleged in the operative complaint is solely concerned with the sheriff’s 

sale at which Keller obtained legal title to the land, and it is clear from 

the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the plaintiffs’ motion papers, 

and state court records of which we have taken judicial notice that he, 

Thomas Wright, is not a party to the action in ejectment, nor is he himself 

in occupation or possession of the land—the plaintiff has made clear that 

he continues to reside in North Carolina.

As the Third Circuit has held, “there must be a relationship 

between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct 

Lot 3 parcel, PIN 09-N5-00A-08A-000, where Adolph Wright continues to 

reside. It is not clear whether Keller claims fee-simple ownership or 

merely a half-interest in the larger 147-acre parcel surrounding Adolph 

Wright’s homestead, PIN 09-N5-00A-008-000. Based on the public 

records discussed above, the latter would appear to be the case.

19 As noted in our discussion of the factual background, Thomas 

Wright appears to have retained no ownership interest in the Lot 3 parcel 

where Adolph Wright actually resides.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 12 of 15
- 13 -

asserted in the complaint.” Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. App’x 836, 837 (3d 

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “a court 

may not grant an injunction when the issues raised in the motion are 

entirely different from those raised in the complaint.” Jones v. Taylor, No. 

3:12cv487, 2013 WL 1899852, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2023) (citing De 

Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220–23 (1945)); see 

also Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (“A district 

court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is 

not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside 

the issues in the suit.”) (citing De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220); Dopp v. Jones, 

No. CIV-12-703-HE, 2012 WL 7192503, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2012) 

(“A preliminary injunction involves intermediate relief of the same 

character as that which may be finally granted.”) (citing De Beers, 325 

U.S. at 220) (footnote omitted).

The only relief sought in the plaintiff’s amended complaint is an 

award of damages for past conduct that caused the allegedly 

unconstitutional alienation of his legal title to part of the erstwhile 

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 13 of 15
- 14 -

Wright family farm.20 Thus, in this action for damages, this federal 

district court has no equity power to restrain the defendant, holder of 

legal title to the land, from exercising his right to vindicate his ownership 

of that land in the state court ejectment suit. See Grupo Mexicano de 

Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 333 (1999);

Novatek Corp. v. Mallet, 324 F. Supp. 3d 560, 567 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

Moreover, the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue any claim concerning the 

possessory rights of his brother, who has proven himself perfectly capable 

of litigating in his own interests.21 See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 

(1975) (“[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and 

interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or 

interests of third parties.”); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 115–16 

(1976) (considering “the ability of the third party to assert his own right”). 

This is particularly true with respect to Lot 3, as to which Thomas Wright 

has no apparent ownership claim at all.22 Ultimately, “the court does not 

20 As we have noted, it is not at all clear from the record that Keller’s 

foreclosure action has adversely affected Thomas Wright’s half-interest 

in the larger 147-acre parcel. But even if it has, the only relief sought by 

the amended complaint is an award of damages.

21 See supra note 1. 22 In the context of Thomas Wright’s half-interest in the larger 147-

(continued on next page)

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 14 of 15
- 15 - 

have jurisdiction over the claims raised by [Thomas Wright] in his motion 

for an injunction because those matters are not part of this action.” Jones, 

2013 WL 1899852, at *2.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s three pro se motions for a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 27, Doc. 31, Doc. 

34) will be denied.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: December 2, 2024 s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States District Judge

acre parcel, we note that, even assuming Thomas Wright and Keller both 

hold legal title to that parcel as tenants in common, it is well settled that 

“[a] tenant in common is entitled to possession of the common property 

as against all the world save his cotenants” and “can maintain an action 

in ejectment to recover possession of his own interest in the common 

property.” Fry v. Stetson, 106 A.2d 662, 665 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1954). Thus, 

even if Thomas Wright continues to hold a half-interest in legal title to 

the 147-acre parcel, as his tenant in common, Keller “has a right to 

possession which is superior to that of strangers to the title,” including 

Adolph Wright. See id.

Case 3:23-cv-00597-JFS-WIA Document 38 Filed 12/02/24 Page 15 of 15