Young v. Third and Mission Associates LLC et al
Filing
58
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup re 19 Motion for Sanctions; re 30 Motion to Dismiss; re 32 Motion to Dismiss (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
FANYA YOUNG,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 14-03627 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
THIRD AND MISSION ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS, GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
VACATING HEARING
INTRODUCTION
In this landlord-tenant dispute, the tenant has moved for sanctions and the landlord has
18
moved to dismiss. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for sanctions is DENIED. The motion
19
to dismiss is GRANTED. The October 9 hearing is hereby VACATED.
20
STATEMENT
21
A prior order recounted the history of this action so it will not be repeated herein
22
(Dkt. No. 33). In brief, this is a landlord-tenant dispute involving rent payments. The landlord
23
brought an unlawful detainer action in state court and prevailed. Specifically, the landlord and
24
tenant entered a stipulation setting forth a payment plan, which the tenant then allegedly violated.
25
The state court entered judgment against the tenant and in favor of the landlord. The tenant
26
moved to dismiss the state court proceeding, arguing, inter alia, that she resided in a “subsidized
27
apartment,” the landlord violated “federal notice requirements,” and the landlord “charged
28
unwarranted late fees.” The tenant’s motions were denied. The state court found that the tenant
failed to show that her tenancy was governed by federal notice requirements, failed to provide any
1
evidence that the landlord failed to comply with the notice requirements, and dismissal was not
2
warranted. The judgment became final and no timely appeal was filed. An eviction was
3
scheduled.
4
The tenant, Attorney Fanya Young, then began this action in federal court. Two hearings
5
occurred and the tenant was heard on both occasions. The tenant was then given time to depose a
6
non-party and conduct some discovery. Her motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
7
Now, the tenant moves for sanctions and seeks attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, $5,000 for
8
her bond, and $15,000 for “willful misrepresentations.” The landlord moves to dismiss the
9
complaint. No response to the landlord’s motion was timely filed, even though the motion was
mailed to the address then provided in ECF and electronically notified of the filing via an email to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
an email address provided in ECF. In any event, the tenant was given another chance to respond.
12
No opposition was filed, but the tenant, without obtaining leave to do so, filed a “first amended
13
complaint.” The proposed first amended complaint was incomplete, cutting off on page 21. Also
14
appended were voluminous exhibits, for a total submission of 151 pages, which the Court has
15
reviewed. The tenant’s submission was improper, nevertheless, this order will consider it. The
16
time to oppose the motion to dismiss has elapsed.
17
ANALYSIS
18
1.
19
The tenant’s motion is procedurally defective because Attorney Young failed to comply
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.
20
with Rule 11(c)(2). That failure precludes her from obtaining a sanctions award. Radcliffe v.
21
Rainbow Construction Company, 254 F.3d 772, 789 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, the hodgepodge
22
of documents submitted do not show that any misrepresentations occurred. The tenant also failed
23
to provide any proof supporting the unspecified amount of fees, expenses, and costs sought.
24
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
25
26
2.
MOTION TO DISMISS.
A.
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
27
The complaint fails to contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a Fair
28
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
2
1
662, 678 (2009). All of the references to the FCRA in the complaint are conclusory or in error.
2
Indeed, the sections cited in the complaint appear in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, not
3
the FCRA. The FCRA claim is DISMISSED.
4
5
6
7
The proposed first amended complaint, which plaintiff filed without obtaining leave to do
so, fails to state a claim under the FCRA. Accordingly, the FCRA claim is DISMISSED.
B.
Section 247.
The problems with the claims invoking Section 247 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal
brief, the tenant litigated these issues against the landlord in state court. The tenant’s motions
10
were denied and judgment was entered. The tenant is precluded from re-litigating these same
11
For the Northern District of California
Regulations were explained at length at the August 19 hearing and in the September 4 order. In
9
United States District Court
8
issues in a later-filed, new federal action. Accordingly, the Section 247 claims are DISMISSED.
12
The proposed first amended complaint invokes Section 247 but re-characterizes the claim
13
as a “procedural due process” claim. Defendants, however, are private entities and the proposed
14
first amended complaint fails to identify a deprivation of an interest protected by the due process
15
clause. Accordingly, the procedural due process claim is DISMISSED.
16
17
C.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The complaint invokes the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.
18
(“FDCPA”), arguing that defendants misrepresented the tenant’s debts, collected unauthorized
19
fees, demanded payments in a “harassing” manner, and employed “unfair” collection methods.
20
The tenant, however, voluntarily waived these claims when she entered into a stipulation with the
21
landlord. That stipulation was accepted by the state court judge. Therein, the tenant agreed to a
22
specific payment schedule in exchange for possession of the premises, according to the terms of
23
the stipulation. She agreed that in the event of non-compliance, the landlord was entitled to a writ
24
of execution for money and possession. She waived “any and all rights to a noticed motion on the
25
entry of a judgment pursuant to [the] Stipulation.” When the landlord obtained a writ of
26
execution for money and possession, she argued in state court that the landlord alleged
27
“inaccurate” amounts, charged “unwarranted late fees,” “failed to credit payments made,” and
28
3
1
“retaliated” against her (Dkt. Nos. 22-2, 25). The state court rejected the tenant’s arguments and
2
judgment was entered against her. Accordingly, the FDCPA claims are DISMISSED.
3
The proposed first amended complaint states essentially the same claims for relief as in
4
the complaint. The proposed fifth claim for relief is also incomplete, ending at paragraph 130. In
5
any event, for the same reasons stated above, the FDCPA claims are DISMISSED.
6
7
D.
State-Law Claim.
The complaint invokes California Civil Code Section 3294. This order declines to
8
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim since all of the federal claims have
9
been dismissed. Accordingly, the state-law claim is DISMISSED. The proposed first amended
complaint does not plead any state-law claims.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
CONCLUSION
12
For the reasons stated herein, the motion for sanctions is DENIED. The motion to dismiss
13
is GRANTED. All claims in the complaint and proposed first amended complaint are DISMISSED.
14
The October 9 hearing and case management conference are hereby VACATED. Since no claims
15
remain, judgment shall issue in a separate order.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: September 30, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?