Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-1-2006

Vallies v. Sky Bank Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-1002

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "Vallies v. Sky Bank" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1521. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1521

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________

No. 05-1002 __________

LOUIS R. VALLIES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated vehicle buyers,

Appellant v.

SKY BANK, an Ohio Bank licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Appellee ___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Dist. Ct. Case No. 01-cv-1438) ___________

ORDER __________

BEFORE: SMITH, STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges __________

Our opinion in the above case, filed on January 5, 2006, is hereby

amended pursuant to the following: Footnote number one, on pages four

and five, will be struck in its entirety, along with the corresponding

sentence, on page four, “Fitts was not Sky Bank’s agent and at all relevant

times acted independently.” Additionally, on page six, the sentence,

“Moreover, nothing contained in the agreement would suggest to Vallies

that Fitts was acting on the bank’s behalf in entering it.” will be inserted directly prior to the sentence, “Instead, the agreement was signed only by

Vallies and Fitts.” Finally, “we reverse the grant of summary judgment” on

the last line on page 17 will be replaced with, “we reverse its order granting

the motion to dismiss”.

It is so ordered.

By the Court, /s/ Richard L. Nygaard _____________________ United States Circuit Judge

Dated: February 1, 2006