Adler v. Penn Credit Corporation

Background

Menachem Adler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, moved for reconsideration of an earlier decision and order granting summary judgment to Penn Credit Corporation. Adler argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the matter—to issue that decision and judgment.

The opinion identifies the case as docket number 7:19-cv-07084-KMK in the Southern District of New York. It does not describe the underlying claim, the facts supporting the earlier summary-judgment ruling, or the earlier decision in detail.

Court’s Reasoning

The court quoted Rule 56(c), which requires summary judgment after adequate time for discovery when a party fails to show evidence establishing an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party would have the burden of proof at trial.

The court acknowledged that challenges to a plaintiff’s standing—whether the plaintiff has suffered a sufficient injury to sue—are less common at the summary-judgment stage than at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It nevertheless stated that courts may grant summary judgment when a plaintiff fails to establish sufficient injury to confer standing. The court cited decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, district courts within that circuit, and other federal appellate courts supporting that proposition.

Ruling

The court denied Adler’s motion. The opinion’s stated disposition is only that the motion was “denied”; it does not separately state a disposition of the earlier summary judgment beyond describing that earlier decision as having granted summary judgment to Penn Credit Corporation.