Stark v. TrueAccord Corp. et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING ( 26 , 31 ) CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 30 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2021)

Case 4:20-cv-02898-HSG Document 46 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEREMY STARK,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

TRUEACCORD CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-02898-HSG
ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 26, 30, 31

12
Plaintiff Jeremy Stark alleges that Defendants TrueAccord Corp. (“TrueAccord”) and

13
14

LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15

15

U.S.C. §§ 1692g(b), 1692e, and 1692f. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Pending before the Court are

16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,1 see Dkt. Nos. 26, 32, 40, Plaintiff’s motion for

17

partial summary judgment, see Dkt. Nos. 31, 34, 42, and Defendants’ motion for sanctions, see

18

Dkt. Nos. 30, 33, 41.2

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants raise no specific arguments about Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1692e and Section
1692f in their motion. Accordingly, the Court construes Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on “Plaintiff’s one-count complaint,” see Dkt. No. 26 at 1, as a motion for partial
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under Section 1692g(b).
2
On April 16, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
Dkt. No. 45. With respect to the motion for sanctions, the Court finds this matter appropriate for
disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
1

Case 4:20-cv-02898-HSG Document 46 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Because the Court finds the matter is not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment

2

given arguable ambiguities in the record regarding service of discovery responses and the receipt

3

of any dispute letter, the Court DENIES the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment.

4

Further, because the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this case, the Court DENIES

5

Defendants’ motion for sanctions. The parties are reminded that under the Court’s pretrial

6

standing order their pretrial filings are due on June 8, 2021, and any motions in limine are due on

7

June 1, 2021. The parties will be strictly held to these filing requirements if they do not settle the

8

case before these deadlines, which will not be continued. Moreover, the Court informs the parties

9

that it will not entertain any request to continue the July 6, 2021 trial date, and the parties must be

10

prepared to proceed on that date if they cannot settle this case.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/28/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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