SANDUSKY v. BERGER LAW GROUP, P.C.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL SANDUSKY, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. BERGER LAW GROUP, P.C. and FIRST NO. 25-5698 CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANK f/k/a HUNTINGDON VALLEY BANK, Defendants. O R D E R AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 17, 23), the oppositions thereto (ECF Nos. 25, 26), and Defendants replies (ECF Nos. 27, 28), IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants Motions (ECF Nos. 17, 23) are GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint as to any claims dismissed without prejudice on or before October 9, 2026. 3. If Plaintiff does not wish to amend her First Amended Complaint and instead intends to stand on her First Amended Complaint, she may file a notice with the Court on or before October 9, 2026 stating that intent, at which time the Court will issue a final order dismissing the case. Any such notice should be titled “Notice to Stand on Complaint,” and shall include the civil action number for this case. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232, 241 (3d Cir. 2019) (“If the plaintiff does not desire to amend, he may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his intent to stand on the complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.” (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976))); In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703–04 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding “that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with prejudice the otherwise viable claims . . . following plaintiffs’ decision not to replead those claims” when the district court “expressly warned plaintiffs that failure to replead the remaining claims . . . would result in the dismissal of those claims”). 4. If Plaintiff fails to file any response to this Order, the Court will conclude that she intends to stand on her First Amended Complaint and will issue a final order dismissing this case.1 See Weber, 939 F.3d at 239–40 (explaining that a plaintiff’s intent to stand on his complaint may be inferred from inaction after issuance of an order directing him to take action to cure a defective complaint). BY THE COURT: /s/ Hon. Kelley B. Hodge HODGE, KELLEY B., J. 1 The six-factor test announced in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), is inapplicable to dismissal orders based on a plaintiff’s intention to stand on her complaint. See Weber, 939 F.3d at 241 & n.11 (treating the “stand on the complaint” doctrine as distinct from dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order, which require assessment of the Poulis factors); see also Elansari v. Altria, 799 F. App’x 107, 108 n.1 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Indeed, an analysis under Poulis is not required when a plaintiff willfully abandons the case or makes adjudication impossible, as would be the case when a plaintiff opts not to amend her complaint, leaving the case without an operative pleading. See Dickens v. Danberg, 700 F. App’x 116, 118 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Where a plaintiff’s conduct clearly indicates that he willfully intends to abandon the case, or where the plaintiff’s behavior is so contumacious as to make adjudication of the case impossible, a balancing of the Poulis factors is not necessary.”); Baker v. Accounts Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 292 F.R.D. 171, 175 (D.N.J. 2013) (“[T]he Court need not engage in an analysis of the six Poulis factors in cases where a party willfully abandons her case or otherwise makes adjudication of the matter impossible.” (citing cases)).