Eva Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC; Vision Solar NJ LLC; Jon Seibert; Sunlight Financial LLC; Cross River Bank

Migliore · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · November 21, 2025 · No. 24-1679

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit grants panel rehearing in Eva Migliore's appeal and directs the Clerk to file an amended opinion. The amended opinion removes dicta concerning the Fair Credit Reporting Act, without changing the disposition or judgment, and the court denies rehearing en banc.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
Thomas L. Ambro; Chagares, Chief Judge; Hardiman; Shwartz; Krause; Restrepo; Bibas; Porter; Matey; Phipps; Freeman; Montgomery-Reeves; Chung; Bove; Mascott; Ambro, Senior Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decision date
November 21, 2025
Docket number
24-1679
Procedural posture
Appellant petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Third Circuit. Panel rehearing was granted, an amended opinion was filed, and rehearing en banc was denied.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Eva Migliore, by her friend Joseph Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC, Vision Solar NJ LLC, Jon Seibert, Sunlight Financial LLC, Cross River Bank
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether panel rehearing should be granted to amend the opinion by removing a paragraph of dicta concerning the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
  2. Whether rehearing en banc should be granted.

Holdings

  1. Panel rehearing is granted, and the Clerk is directed to file the amended opinion contemporaneously with the order.
  2. Because the revisions do not affect the disposition of the appeal, the judgment remains as filed.
  3. Rehearing en banc is denied.

Factual background

The order does not discuss the underlying facts or merits of the dispute. It identifies the parties and states that the amended opinion removes a paragraph of dicta regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Procedural history

The appeal arose from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 1:23-cv-02623. After the court of appeals issued its decision, appellant sought panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The panel granted rehearing to allow an amended opinion removing a paragraph of dicta concerning the Fair Credit Reporting Act, stated that the revisions did not affect the disposition, left the judgment in place, and denied rehearing en banc.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…