Davis v. Hollins Law

Filing 101

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/14/2014 ORDERING 100 Application for Order Shortening Time to Hear Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Statutory Damages is DENIED, Plaintiff's 98 Motion for Le ave to File a Reply Brief in Support of his Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs is DENIED, The hearings on Plaintiffs 93 Motion for Award of Statutory Damages and Defendants 94 Motion toStrike Plaintiffs Motion for Award of Statutory Dama ges, both currently set for June 2, 2014, are VACATED. Parties are WARNED that the filing of any further briefs or motions before the court issues an order deciding the issues of damages and attorney's fees and costs may be grounds for substantial sanctions. (Waggoner, D) Modified on 5/14/2014 (Waggoner, D).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL DAVIS,

12
13
14

No. CIV. S-12-3107 LKK/AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

HOLLINS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION,

15
Defendant.
16
17

Plaintiff Michael Davis sued defendant Hollins Law, A

18

Professional Corporation, alleging violations of the federal Fair

19

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 - 1692p

20

(“FDCPA”) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection

21

Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 - 1788.33 (“Rosenthal

22

Act”). The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was that defendant

23

placed collection calls to his home phone, and left a voicemail

24

message which failed to disclose that the communication was from

25

a debt collector.

26

Trial in this matter was held on April 15, 2014. At the

27

conclusion of trial, the court found that defendant had violated

28

the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, but deferred its ruling on
1

1

damages. The court also directed plaintiff to file a petition for

2

attorney’s fees and costs within fourteen (14) days, and

3

defendant to respond within ten (10) days thereafter.

4

In the month since, the parties have filed the following:


5

Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

6

(April 29, 2014, ECF No. 91) and his Bill of Costs

7

(April 29, 2014, ECF No. 90).


8
9

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Petition for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (May 9, 2014, ECF No. 96.)



10
11

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs.
(May 9, 2014, ECF No. 95.)



12

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in

13

Support of his Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs,

14

currently set for hearing on June 9, 2014.1 (May 12,

15

2014, ECF No. 98.)


16

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

17

to File a Reply Brief in Support of his Petition for

18

Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (May 13, 2014, ECF No. 99.)


19

Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Statutory Damages,

20

currently set for hearing on June 2, 2014. (May 1,

21

2014, ECF No. 93.)


22

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for

23

Award of Statutory Damages, currently set for hearing

24

on June 2, 2014. (May 2, 2014, ECF No. 94.)

25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that it is not scheduled to hear law & motion
argument on June 9, 2014. The fact that plaintiff plucked a date
out of thin air, rather than following the procedures for
securing a date on the court’s motion calendar, further evinces
the sloppiness with which both parties have handled this case to
date.
2

1



Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike

2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Statutory Damages. (May

3

12, 2014, ECF No. 97.)

4



Defendant’s Application for Order Shortening Time to

5

Hear Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion

6

for Award of Statutory Damages. (May 13, 2014, ECF

7

No. 100.)

8
9

The court, having reviewed the parties’ filings, has
concluded that it has more than enough information to decide the

10

issues presented. Accordingly, oral argument and further briefing

11

on these matters is unnecessary. An order will be forthcoming.

12

In the meantime, in the immortal words of Judge Kozinski,

13

“The parties are advised to chill.” Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records,

14

Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002).

15

The court hereby orders as follows:

16

[1] Defendant’s Application for Order Shortening Time to

17

Hear Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for

18

Award of Statutory Damages (ECF No. 100) is DENIED.

19
20

[2] Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in

21

Support of his Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF

22

No. 98) is DENIED.

23
24

[3] The hearings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of

25

Statutory Damages (ECF No. 93) and Defendant’s Motion to

26

Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Statutory Damages

27

(ECF No. 94), both currently set for June 2, 2014, are

28

VACATED.
3

1
2

[4] The parties are WARNED that the filing of any further

3

briefs or motions before the court issues an order deciding

4

the issues of damages and attorney’s fees & costs may be

5

grounds for substantial sanctions.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED:

May 14, 2014.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4