Saelee et al v. BSI Financial Services et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/2/2014 VACATING 2 Motion to Validate as duplicative of the 1 Complaint. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAO SAELEE, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02625-TLN-AC

v.

ORDER

BSI FIN. SERVS., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

18

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed on November 10, 2014, includes the following

19

causes of action: (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §

20

1692 et seq.; (2) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; (3)

21

violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1688, et seq.; (4)

22

negligence; (5) California Consumer Credit Reporting Agency; (6) intentional infliction of

23

emotional distress; (7) declaratory judgment/lien release; (8) injunctive relief; (9) wrongful

24

foreclosure; (10) unfair or deceptive act; and (11) no contract.1 ECF No. 1.
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to validate filed on November 10, 2014. ECF No. 2.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs incorrectly numbered their causes of action in two places. First, plaintiffs failed to
include a seventh (7) cause of action in their complaint. ECF No. 1 at 25. Second, plaintiffs
included “no contract” as their last listed cause of action, but entitled it “sixth claim for relief.”
ECF No. 1 at 29.
1

1

Plaintiffs’ motion asks the court to find that defendants are not the rightful holders of plaintiffs’

2

debt because of their violations of the FDCPA. ECF No. 2. Plaintiffs’ motion also argues that

3

defendants have violated the FCRA by reporting inaccurate credit information about them and

4

asks that defendants be required to delete all inaccurate information. Id. Both causes of action

5

are discussed in plaintiffs’ complaint in far more detail. ECF No. 1 at 11–20, 20–22. Further,

6

both plaintiffs’ motion and their complaint request the same forms of relief. ECF No. 1 at 29–33;

7

ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the court vacates plaintiffs’ motion to validate because it is duplicative

8

of their complaint.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to validate (ECF No. 2)

10

is vacated.

11

DATED: December 2, 2014

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2