Mazzaferro v. Stanaland et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO AMEND ORDERS OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/2/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tf, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RONALD MAZZAFERRO,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 11-4097 SI and No. C 11-4098 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO AMEND ORDERS OF
DISMISSAL

v.
RUSSELL STANALAND, et al.,

12

Defendants.

ORDER TO BE FILED IN BOTH CASES
/

13
14

In an order filed November 9, 2011, the Court granted defendant Russell Stanaland’s motions

15

to dismiss the complaints in these two related cases. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the

16

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act without leave to amend, holding that a state court abstract of

17

judgment recorded by defendant Stanaland is not a consumer “debt” under the FDCPA. The Court

18

dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act without leave to amend on the ground

19

that defendant Stanaland is not a “credit reporting agency,” a “furnisher of information,” or a “user” of

20

a consumer report under the FCRA. See Docket No. 15 in C 11-4097 SI and Docket No. 15 in C 11-

21

4098 SI.

22

Both plaintiffs filed motions to amend the orders of dismissal. The motions are scheduled for

23

a hearing on February 10, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the hearing on those motions is

24

VACATED.1

25

Plaintiffs argue that a state appellate court decision filed after this Court’s November 9, 2011

26
27
28

1

Defendant Stanaland’s motion to declare plaintiff Ronald Mazzaferro a vexatious litigant is
also scheduled for a hearing on February 10, 2012. The Court will address that motion in a separate
order.

1

supports plaintiffs’ claims that the abstract of judgment was obtained in violation of plaintiffs’ due

2

process rights. In that appellate decision, the court held that the state trial court failed to comply with

3

the requirements of California’s anti-SLAPP statute because the trial court failed to specify its reasons

4

for imposing sanctions on plaintiffs in the state court litigation; the monetary sanctions imposed by the

5

trial court formed the basis of the abstract of judgment. Plaintiffs have filed a copy of the appellate

6

decision. However, as defendant notes in his oppositions to plaintiffs’ motions, the state appellate court

7

decision has no bearing on whether, as a matter of law, an abstract of judgment is a “consumer debt”

8

under the FDCPA, or whether defendant Stanaland falls within the statutory definitions of “credit

9

reporting agency,” a “furnisher of information,” or a “user” of a consumer report under the FCRA.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to amend the orders of dismissal and DENIES plaintiffs’
motions. Docket Nos. 19 in C 11-4097 SI and 17 in C 11-4098 SI.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: February 2, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2