Case Name: Whitney WHITFIELD; Celeste Whitfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. RADIAN GUARANTY, INC.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-21
Citations: 539 F.3d 165
Docket Number: No. 05-5017
Parties: Whitney WHITFIELD; Celeste Whitfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. RADIAN GUARANTY, INC.
Judges: Before SLOVITER, RENDELL, and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 539
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Whitney WHITFIELD; Celeste Whitfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. RADIAN GUARANTY, INC.
No. 05-5017.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Jan. 19, 2007.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court June 9, 2008.
Aug. 21, 2008.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq., Terry A. Smilja-nich, Esq., James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, Tampa, FL, Joseph C. Kohn, Esq., Kohn, Swift & Graf, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.
David Smith, Esq., Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, for Radian Guaranty, Inc.
Before SLOVITER, RENDELL, and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
DOLORES K. SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
This court filed its opinion in this matter on August 80, 2007 in which we reversed the District Court's entry of summary judgment for defendant Radian Guaranty, Inc., held that the notice requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act was applicable to Radian, and directed a remand for a determination whether Radian had acted willfully. Whitfield v. Radian Guaranty, Inc., 501 F.3d 262 (3d Cir.2007). On December 19, 2007, Radian filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2008, the Supreme Court requested a response. On April 24, 2008, counsel for Whitney and Celeste Whitfield filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). The same day, the District Court, pursuant to that motion, dismissed the action with prejudice.
On May 5, 2008, Radian Guaranty, Inc., noting the dismissal, filed in the Supreme Court a suggestion of mootness and motion to vacate this court's judgment. On June 9, 2008, the Supreme Court entered an order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Radian Guaranty, Inc., vacating the judgment of this court and remanding the ease to this court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, this case is hereby dismissed as moot.