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)

Download PDF
1 *E-FILED: May 16, 2012* 2 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States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,,,,, 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

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?