PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO SEVER AND VACATE

The court of appeals concluded, however, that the Court erred in applying that test to the question of vacatur of the Defendant’s 2019 Borrower Defense Rule as a whole, and it directed this Court to answer the narrow question “whether the portion of the 2019 Rule … found procedurally invalid [by this Court in 2021], namely, the statute of limitations provision for defensive claims, should be sever. [...] In light of the guidance contained in the Second Circuit’s Order and relevant precedent, the Court should sever and vacate the defensive statute of limitations provision, which remains in effect nearly three years after the Court found it unlawful, without remand. [...] In addition, the remainder of the 2019 Rule can function independently of the defensive statute of limitations. [...] Circuit reflecting a presumption of severability, the court of appeals held that this Court had erred when it “considered only whether the unlawful provision warranted vacatur of the entire rule and did not analyze whether the statute of limitations provision was severable under the circumstances.” Id. [...] Here, by indicating that this Court should apply the two-factor Allina test to the question of partial vacatur, 2024 WL 64220, at *3, the Second Circuit necessarily implied that this Court has statutory authority to vacate the invalid portion of the Rule if that test is satisfied.