Anthony Stissi v. Bag Fund, LLC et al
Filing
138
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BAG FUND LLC'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 132 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
United States District Court
Central District of California
8
9
10
11
Case № 5:17-cv-00534-ODW (PLA)
ANTHONY STISSI, an individual,
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
[132]
vs.
13
14
BAG FUND, LLC; LEO FASEN;
15
VINCENT J. QUIGG; STEWART TITLE
16
GUARANTY COMPANY; EBS
17
ESCROW; and DOES 1 through 80,
18
inclusive,
Defendants.
19
20
I.
21
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Bag Fund, LLC moves for attorneys’ fees for work completed in
22
defending against Plaintiff’s Complaint.
23
(“Mot.”), ECF No. 132.)
24
Defendant’s Motion.1
(See generally Mot. for Attorney Fees
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES
25
26
27
28
1
After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal.
L.R. 7-15.
II.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against various defendants
3
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C.
4
§ 1692; Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681; and other state law
5
claims.
6
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
7
federal law claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
8
state law claims. (Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss (“Order Granting MTD”), ECF
9
No. 103.)
(See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.)
On January 10, 2018, the Court
On January 25, 2018, Defendant Bag Fund, LLC filed a Motion for
10
Attorneys’ Fees. (ECF No. 104.) On July 12, 2018, the Court terminated the motion
11
in light of Defendant’s same pending fee motion in state court and instructed
12
Defendant that, should it be necessary, it should refile its motion no later than thirty
13
days after the date of the state court decision. (Minute Order, ECF No. 126.)
14
On October 24, 2018, the state court issued its decision granting Plaintiff’s
15
Motion to Tax Costs in its entirety and denying Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’
16
Fees. (Decl. of Therese S. Harris (“Harris Decl.”) Ex. 3 (“Notice of Ruling”), at 20–
17
21, ECF Nos. 135-5–135-6.) On November 21, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of
18
Motion for Attorney Fees, but failed to file the Memorandum of Points and
19
Authorities until November 27, 2018. (See Notice of Mot., ECF No. 127; ECF
20
No. 129.) Accordingly, on November 28, 2018, the Court struck the November 21
21
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees due to Defendant’s filing errors. (Order, ECF No. 131.)
22
Defendant re-filed its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees along with the supporting evidence
23
and declarations on November 28, 2018, five days after the deadline set by the Court.
24
(See generally Mot.)
25
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
26
In the Ninth Circuit, a district court that has dismissed a case for lack of subject
27
matter jurisdiction also lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees. Skaff v. Meridien
28
N. Am. Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A court that lacks
2
1
jurisdiction . . . lacks the authority to award attorneys’ fees.”); Smith v. Brady, 972
2
F.2d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 1992); Latch v. United States, 842 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir.
3
1988).
4
jurisdiction,” they “cannot themselves confer subject-matter jurisdiction.” Zambrano
5
v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 282 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002),
6
amended, 302 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002).
When fee-shifting statutes do not “provide an independent grant of
7
The FDCPA provides that “[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this
8
section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may
9
award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and
10
costs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). The defendant bears the burden of showing, by
11
more than a “conclusory assertion,” that the plaintiff acted in bad faith and for the
12
purpose of harassment. Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 940–41
13
(9th Cir. 2007). As long as the plaintiff’s claim is “‘minimally colorable,’ a district
14
court does not abuse its discretion in finding the suit was brought in good faith.”
15
Fields v. Credit Mgmt. Sys., No. EDCV 14-1853 JGB (SPx), 2016 WL 9088755, at *3
16
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016) (quoting Guerrero, 499 F.3d at 940).
17
IV.
DISCUSSION
18
The Court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees in this case, and even if
19
this Court had jurisdiction, the Court cannot make a finding that the action was
20
brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment
21
The Ninth Circuit has consistently applied the rule against awarding attorneys’
22
fees when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction “to a broad array of fee-shifting
23
statutes.” Zambrano, 282 F.3d at 1150. Unless the statute provides an independent
24
grant of subject-matter jurisdiction, this rule applies regardless of which “specific fee-
25
shifting statute [is] involved.” Id.
26
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims for lack of subject matter
27
jurisdiction and declined to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law
28
claims. (Order Granting MTD 8.) Specifically, the Court found that if it were to
3
1
adjudicate the merits of the FDCPA and FCRA allegations, “it would be forced to
2
determine the validity of the underlying [state-court] Judgment,” and as a result,
3
“under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” “the Court . . . lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
4
to hear Plaintiff’s FDCPA and FCRA claims.” (Id. at 7–8.) Nor does the Court find
5
that 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) provides the Court with an independent grant of subject
6
matter jurisdiction. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to award attorneys’
7
fees.
8
Even if the Court had jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees, Defendant has not
9
made the necessary showing of bad faith under § 1692k(a)(3). For the Court to award
10
attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA, Defendant bears the burden of putting forth
11
“evidence that the plaintiff knew that his claim was meritless and that plaintiff
12
pursued his claims with the purpose of harassing the defendant.” Gorman v. Wolpoff
13
& Abramson, LLP, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d in part, rev’d
14
in part, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009). While the existence of a “decision squarely
15
establish[ing] that [the plaintiff’s] claim was without merit” could constitute bad faith,
16
mere misapplication of legal principles does not. Juras v. Aman Collection Serv., Inc.,
17
829 F.2d 739, 745 (9th Cir. 1987).
18
Beyond conclusory statements, Defendant has not met its burden in
19
demonstrating that Plaintiff knew that its claim was meritless. Defendant does not cite
20
any case law discussing the application of § 1692k(a)(3), and “[t]his alone is grounds
21
to deny the motion.” See Fields, 2016 WL 9088755, at *3. Defendant also does not
22
mention that the Complaint was brought for the purpose of harassment, as required by
23
the statute. See Bonner v. Redwood Mortg. Corp., No. C 10-00479 WHA, 2010 WL
24
2528962, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2010) (citing Guerrero, 499 F.3d at 940–41)
25
(declining to award attorneys’ fees under § 1692k, despite finding the plaintiff acted in
26
bad faith, where the defendant failed to show the plaintiff’s purpose was to harass).
27
28
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendant failed to make the
requisite showing that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees.
4
V.
1
2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
April 29, 2019
7
8
9
10
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?