Tuesday, July 28, 2020

custody - 3d party standing - amended rules




Comment — 2020
Act of May 4, 2018, P.L. 112, No. 21, amended 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 by adding a new class of third-party standing for individuals seeking custody of a child whose parents do not have care and control of the child. The individual seeking custody may or may not be related to the child. 

Subject to Section 5324(5), the newly added standing provision requires that: (1) the individual has assumed or is willing to assume responsibility for the child; (2) the individual has a sustained, substantial, and sincere interest in the child’s welfare; and (3) the child’s parents do not have care and control of the child. A plaintiff proceeding under Section 5324(4) shall satisfy the requirements of that provision by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, if a juvenile dependency proceeding has been initiated, or is ongoing, or there is an order for permanent legal custody, Section 5324(5) provides that an individual cannot assert standing under Section 5324(4). 

Consistent with the Act 21 of 2018 statutory changes, subdivision (e) has been revised to include a third party seeking custody of a child under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(4). The subdivision has been reorganized to sequentially follow the statutory provisions in 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5324(2)-(4) and 5325. Similarly, the Complaint for Custody Paragraph 9 in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.15(a) has been reorganized to sequentially follow the statutory provisions and rules sequence, as well. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.15(a). 

Rule 1915.5. Question of Jurisdiction, Venue, or Standing. [No Responsive Pleading by Defendant Required.] Counterclaim. Discovery. No Responsive Pleading by Defendant Required page3image1809545328page3image1809545616page3image1809545904
[(a) A party must raise any question of jurisdiction of the person or venue, and may raise any question of standing, by preliminary objection filed within twenty days of service of the pleading to which objection is made or at the time of hearing, whichever first occurs. No other pleading shall be required, but if one is filed it shall not delay the hearing.] 
(a) Question of Jurisdiction, Venue, or Standing. 
  1. (1)  A party shall raise jurisdiction of the person or venue by 
preliminary objection. 
  1. (2)  A party may raise standing by preliminary objection or at a custody hearing or trial. 
  2. (3)  The court may raise standing sua sponte
  3. (4)  In a third-party plaintiff custody action in which standing has not been resolved by preliminary objection, the court shall address the third-party plaintiff’s standing and include its standing decision in a written opinion or order. 


Note: The court may raise at any time a question of (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or (2) the exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant to [§]Section 5426 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, relating to simultaneous proceedings in other courts, [§]Section 5427, relating to inconvenient forum, and [§]Section 5428, relating to jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5407, provides that, upon request of a party, an action in which a question of the existence or exercise of jurisdiction is raised shall be given calendar priority and handled expeditiously. 

(b) A party may file a counterclaim asserting the right of physical or legal custody within [twenty]20 days of service of the complaint upon that party or at the time of hearing, whichever first occurs. The claim shall be in the same form as a complaint as required by [Rule]Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.3.

(c) There shall be no discovery unless authorized by special order of court. 
Note: The rule relating to discovery in domestic relations matters generally is [Rule]Pa.R.C.P. No. 1930.5. 

(d) Except as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b), a responsive pleading shall not be required. If a party files a responsive pleading, it shall not delay a hearing or trial. 

consumer - student loans - affirmative misrepresentations - no pre-emption by federal law

Commonwealth of Pa. v. Navient Corp. – 3d Cirl – July 27, 2020

We decide two issues in this appeal: first, whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may bring a parallel enforcement action against Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC  under the [federal] Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. . . .after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed suit.

And second, whether and to what extent the federal Higher Education Act of 1965. . . .preempts the Commonwealth’s loan- servicing claims under its Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 201-1 to 201-9.3. 

We hold that the plain language of the Consumer Protection Act permits the Commonwealth’s concurrent action. And we follow our sister Circuits in holding that although the preemption provision of the Education Act preempts claims based on failures to disclose information as required by the statute, it does not preempt claims based on affirmative misrepresentations. 

As the Commonwealth’s claims under the PA Protection Law based on affirmative misrepresentations and misconduct are not preempted, we affirm the District Court’s denial of Navient’s motion to dismiss.