Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-01382
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Judge Woods granted dismissal without prejudice and denied a stay for lack of jurisdiction.
Marilena C. Parolise and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; the case was closed after the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and the motion to stay was denied for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened
Marilena C. Parolise brought this action concerning a $8,190.99 debt allegedly owed by her and later assigned to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The court considered the respondent’s motion to dismiss and Parolise’s emergency motion to stay arbitration.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended granting the motion to dismiss and denying the motion to stay. Parolise objected, but the district court reviewed the relevant issues and found no valid reason to reject the recommendation.
In Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Judge Gregory H. Woods adopted the recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and denied the motion to stay for lack of jurisdiction. The court entered judgment for the respondent and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Parolise v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01382
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 26, 2024
Background
This action concerned a $8,190.99 debt allegedly owed by Petitioner Marilena C. Parolise that was later assigned to Respondent Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail. Portfolio Recovery Associates moved to dismiss the amended petition, and Parolise filed an emergency motion to stay arbitration.
Report and Recommendation
On August 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion to dismiss be granted and the motion to stay arbitration be denied. Parolise objected to the recommendation, and Portfolio Recovery Associates opposed those objections.
The district court treated the objections as sufficiently specific for a fresh review of the challenged portions of the recommendation. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the objections, and the opposition, the court rejected the objections and adopted Judge Parker’s report and recommendation in full.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Portfolio Recovery Associates’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court separately denied Parolise’s motion to stay for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment for Portfolio Recovery Associates, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The opinion does not state the underlying reasons for dismissal beyond adopting the report and recommendation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.