Beckett v. MACYSDSNB

Filing 63

INTERIM ORDER re 53 Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Plaintiff's response due within 10 days from the date of this order. 5/29/2012 motion hearing is vacated, and Mr. Christman's request for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/16/2012. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2012)

1
*E-FILED: May 16, 2012*

2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14

No. C11-00246 HRL

GARNER BECKETT,

INTERIM ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS

Plaintiff,
v.
MACYSDSNB and DOES 1-5,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff Garner Beckett previously moved to dismiss his sole claim for relief under the

18

federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). Defendant Macy’s Credit

19

and Customer Services, Inc. (Macy’s)1 opposed that motion. The main point of contention was

20

whether the FCRA claim should be dismissed with prejudice or whether dismissal should be

21

without prejudice to plaintiff to pursue a state court action. The court found that Macy’s would

22

not be prejudiced by dismissal without prejudice as requested by plaintiff. Nevertheless, the

23

court granted Macy’s request to condition such dismissal on payment of Macy’s reasonable fees

24

and costs incurred (with certain limitations on the fees and costs that could be recovered). (Dkt.

25

52, February 14, 2012 Order).

26

The matter is now before the court on defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

27

In his opposition to that motion, plaintiff indicates that he might not pursue a state court action

28

after all—a sentiment that suggests to this court that he may now be willing to agree to a
1

Defendant says that it erroneously was sued as “MACYSDSNB.”

1

dismissal with prejudice. The only reason the fees/costs issue is on the table is because plaintiff

2

wanted to dismiss his FCRA claim without prejudice to pursue a state court lawsuit.

3

Accordingly, the court directs plaintiff to clarify his intentions: Does he wish to dismiss this

4

action with or without prejudice? Plaintiff shall file a response within 10 days from the date of

5

this order.

6

Meanwhile, the May 29, 2012 motion hearing is vacated, and Mr. Christman’s request to

7

appear at that hearing by phone is denied as moot. After review of plaintiff’s response to this

8

order, the court may issue further orders or re-set the hearing, as may be appropriate, with

9

respect to defendant’s pending fees/costs motion.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2012

12
HOWARD R. LLOYD
13

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

5:11-cv-00246-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Michael Corey Christman

3

Perry James Woodward

4

Sasha Lankarani

5

Susan Tayeko Kumagai [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

6
7

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3