Louie v. Asset Capital Recovery Group et al

Filing 25

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/10/15. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

STEVEN C. LOUIE,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-15-1680 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, et
al.,

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in this action on June 10, 2015.
16
Docket No. 13. The Court is currently scheduled to hear argument on the matter on July 23, 2015.
17
Docket No. 21.
18
In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint brought under the Fair
19
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices
20
Act (RFDCPA) is plainly time barred on its face. Specifically, the only affirmative action pleaded
21
in the complaint that could potentially be timely appears to be Defendants’ filing of an opposition
22
brief in San Francisco Superior Court. According to Plaintiff’s complaint, that brief was filed on
23
April 11, 2014. See Docket No. 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 42 (pleading that Defendants “fil[ed] an
24
opposition to the motion to vacate on April 11, 2014”). Plaintiff also has submitted a request for
25
judicial notice that attaches a copy of what Plaintiff claims is the relevant opposition brief. Docket
26
No. 23, Ex. 2. The brief is dated April 11, 2014. See id. This action was filed on April 13, 2015,
27
see id., and the parties agree that the action is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See Agnir
28

1

v. The Gryphon Solutions, LLC, No. 12-cv-4470-LHK, 2013 WL 4082974, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9,

2

2013) (recognizing that FDCPA and RFDCPA claims are subject to one-year statute of limitations).

3

Because the complaint in this action was filed more than one-year after the last act Plaintiff alleges

4

violates the relevant statutes, the complaint would initially appear to be time barred on its face.

5

Defendants, however, have submitted a copy of what they purport is the Docket Sheet in the

6

underlying state court action that indicates that the relevant brief was filed on April 17, 2014--a date

7

that falls within the one-year limitations period. See Docket No. 14 (Request for Judicial Notice).

8

However, the same docket sheet also indicates that Plaintiff’s reply brief was filed April 17, which

9

raises doubts as to whether the opposition was actually filed on the 17th, or rather was simply

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

docketed on the Court’s electronic records system on the 17th.1
The parties are hereby directed to file supplemental briefs and evidence regarding the date

12

discrepancy noted above. The parties are to lay out their respective positions as to when the

13

opposition brief was actually filed, and thus whether they believe that the Plaintiff’s complaint

14

adequately alleges at least one law violation that took place within the relevant statutory period. At

15

a minimum, the parties should file a copy of the original proof of service for the April 11/17

16

opposition brief if that evidence is in either party’s possession. Any such supplemental brief shall be

17

no longer than three (3) pages in length, and shall be filed no later than Tuesday, July 14, 2015.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: July 10, 2015

21
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In this Court’s experience, reply briefs are rarely filed on the same day an opposition brief

is filed.

2