Stephen G. Conklin v. Purcell, Krug & Haller

The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of*
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 07-1646
STEPHEN G. CONKLIN,
Appellant
v.
PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER; LEON P. HALLER, Esquire; BRIAN J.
TYLER, Esquire; JOHN W. PURCELL, Esquire; HOWARD B. KRUG,
Esquire; JOHN W. PURCELL, JR., Esquire; JILL M. WINEKA,
Esquire; NICHOLE M. STALEY O'GORMAN, Esquire; EMC MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; RALENE RUYLE, President; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
INC.; W. LANCE ANDERSON, President; FIDELITY NATIONAL FORECLOSURE
SOLUTIONS; LARRY DINGMANN, Esquire; CLAY CORNETT, President;
GREGORY WHITWORTH, Executive Vice President; CHASE BANK OF
TEXAS, formerly known a Texas Commerce Bank, N.A.; WALTER V.
SHIPLEY; KRISTINE M. ANTHOU; DANIEL J. BIRSIC, Esquire;
GRENEN & BERSIC P.C.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 05-cv-01726)
District Judge: Hon. Yvette Kane
Before: McKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,
and TASHIMA, Senior Circuit Judge*
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 24, 2008
(filed: June 9, 2008 )

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Stephen G. Conklin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second
amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). That complaint alleged
that the defendants violated federal and state laws regulating debt collection and
foreclosure proceedings. He also alleged that certain of the defendants violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). He also
asserted numerous claims for conspiracy and violations of 39 U.S.C. § 3001(h), (I)
(mailing deceptive solicitations), 39 U.S.C. §§ 3001, 3005 (mailing false documents for
purposes of obtaining money) and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (use of fraudulent scheme to collect
debt). In addition, Conklin asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. § 2270.1 et seq (“FCEUA”), and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 (“UTPCPL”). In a nutshell,
Conklin alleges that the defendants, individually and collectively, violated the federal
and state laws recited above in connection with the foreclosure of a home Conklin
purchased in 1997 with the aid of a loan which he admitted was in default.
Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties and the district court has set forth
the factual and procedural history of this case, we find it unnecessary to restate the
factual and procedural history here. Conklin v. Purcell, Krug & Haller, 2007 WL

-- 2 of 3 --

3
404047 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2007). In its thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district
court explained its conclusion that Conklin failed to state any claims for which relief
could be granted. Given the district court’s analysis, there is little that we can add to
explain why defendant’s numerous allegations simply do not state a legal claim.
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court’s order dismissing defendant’s complaint
substantially for the reasons set forth in the court’s Memorandum and Opinion.

-- 3 of 3 --