§Why CasetextPricing

STRANSKY v. PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC et al

REPLY to Response to Motion

22 Cited authorities

  1. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman

    460 U.S. 462 (1983)   Cited 10,517 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs’ claims that the state court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs’ petitions for waiver were inextricably intertwined with the state-court judgment denying their petitions

  2. Younger v. Harris

    401 U.S. 37 (1971)   Cited 16,640 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was improper for the district court in that case to enjoin a state prosecution against Younger, in light of "the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances"

  3. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

    424 U.S. 800 (1976)   Cited 8,167 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court

  4. Wyatt v. Cole

    504 U.S. 158 (1992)   Cited 1,523 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that qualified immunity applies to claims under Section 1983

  5. Heintz v. Jenkins

    514 U.S. 291 (1995)   Cited 1,131 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “debt collector” as used in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a, includes attorneys notwithstanding the definition's lack of an express reference to lawyers or litigation

  6. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,130 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  7. California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited

    404 U.S. 508 (1972)   Cited 1,578 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government," including the courts

  8. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.

    263 U.S. 413 (1923)   Cited 9,709 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal suit was "merely an attempt to get rid of the judgment for alleged errors of law committed" by the state courts

  9. Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC

    765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 584 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parties may forfeit choice-of-law issues

  10. Kaymark ex rel. Current v. Bank of Am., N.A.

    783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015)   Cited 252 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such an entity is a debt collector for the purpose of all the Act’s requirements

  11. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,647 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  12. Section 1692 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

    15 U.S.C. § 1692   Cited 14,978 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"

  13. Section 2A:50-2 - Order of proceedings; foreclosure; action on bond; limitations; parties

    N.J. Stat. § 2A:50-2   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that "any person" who signs a mortgage note must be "made a party in the action to foreclose the mortgage"

  14. Section 2A:50-29 - Allowance of set-offs

    N.J. Stat. § 2A:50-29   Cited 1 times

    In any action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, just set-offs shall be allowed, whether the holder of the mortgage is a party plaintiff or defendant. N.J.S. § 2A:50-29