Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell

Filing 78

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/30/10 ORDERING pltf's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 52 is DENIED in its entirety; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dfts' Motion for Summary Judgment 49 is GRANTED to the extent of dismissing Count II and Count IV of the Complaint. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 summary judgment [Docket Entries 52 through 54, inclusive], on liability only, with respect to Counts I, II, IV and V of the Complaint; and The Defendants, Sidney Mickell and Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, having thereby moved for summary judgment [Docket Entries 49 through 51, inclusive], dismissing each of Counts I through VI, inclusive, of the Complaint; and Case No.: 2:09-CV-00760-JAM-KJN [[PROPOSED] ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION CATHERINE EVON, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY MICKELL; and SIDNEY MICKELL, ESQ.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:09-CV-00760-JAM- KJN ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff having filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") [Docket Entry 17] on July 17, 2009, asserting in Counts I through VII, inclusive, that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), 1692e(4), 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692b(2) and 1692c(a)(3), respectively and asserting in Count VIII that the Defendants violated California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et. seq.; and Plaintiff having previously withdrawn Counts VII and VIII of the Complaint; and The parties having filed, on May 5, 2010, cross-motions for summary judgment [Docket Entries 49 through 54, inclusive]; and Plaintiff, Catherine Evon, having thereby moved for partial summary judgment PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Defendants having opposed Plaintiff's motion [Docket Entry 55] to which Plaintiff replied [Docket Entries 66 and 67]; and The Plaintiff having opposed Defendants' motion [Docket Entries 58 through 62, inclusive], to which the Defendants replied [Docket Entries 63 and 64]; and The cross-motions having duly come on to be heard on June 2, 2010; and Sergei Lemberg, Esq., of Lemberg & Associates, LLC and Lara Shapiro, Esq. special counsel to Lemberg & Associates, LLC having appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff ; and John N. Dahlberg, Esq., AnnaMary Gannon, Esq. and Angelito Sevilla, Esq. of Dillingham Murphy, LLP having appeared on behalf of the Defendants; and The Court having read the parties' written submissions and having heard the arguments of counsel and, after due consideration, having rendered its Decision [Docket Entry 71] (a) denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and (b) granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, all for the reasons stated in the transcript of the June 2, 2010 proceedings duly filed with the Court [Docket Entry 72] and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the record [Docket Entry 72], it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED, in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants' motion is GRANTED to the extent of dismissing Count II and Count IV of the Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: June 30, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________ Honorable John A. Mendez Judge of the United States District Court PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com Case No.: 2:09-CV-00760-JAM-KJN [[PROPOSED] ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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?