Reyes v. Credigy Receivables, Inc. et al

Filing 78

ORDER finding as moot 26 Motion to Strike by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/20/2013. (ejdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

CORAZON GAERLAN REYES,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
CREDIGY RECEIVABLES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-05811-EJD
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

[Re: Docket No. 26]

Presently before the court in this debt collection action is Plaintiff Corazon Gaerlan Reyes’

19

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Credigy Receivables, Inc. and Credigy

20

Services Corp.’s (collectively, “Credigy”) Answer. Dkt. No. 26. For the following reasons, the

21

court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as MOOT.

22

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Credigy, Phoenix Law Group Corp., Red Hill

23

Law Group, P.C., Jay Michael Tenenbaum, Ian Nathan Willens, Ronald R. Roundy, and Michael

24

Charles Brkich on November 13, 2012, raising claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection

25

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices

26

Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.33, as well as claims for malicious prosecution and punitive

27

damages. Dkt No. 1. Credigy filed an Answer to the Complaint on December 10, 2012 (Dkt. No.

28

22) and the remaining defendants filed their respective answers in early January (Dkt. Nos. 27 and
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-05811-EJD
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

1

28). Plaintiff moved to strike the affirmative defenses in both Credigy and Red Hill Law Group’s

2

Answers (Dkt. Nos. 26 and 31) and the court took the matter under submission on March 18, 2013

3

(Dkt. No. 59).

4

While these motions to strike have been pending, the parties agreed to dismiss Red Hill

5

Law Group from this case with prejudice (Dkt. No. 67) and Plaintiff filed a First Amended

6

Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. No. 74). The FAC removes Red Hill Law Group but adds Gryphon

7

Solutions, LLC and The Brikich Gabriel Group as named defendants. See Dkt. No. 74. This FAC

8

“supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” Lacey v. Maricopa

9

Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). As such, Defendants’ respective

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Answers to the original Complaint are moot, as are any motions pertaining to the original

11

Complaint or any Answers to it. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 26) is

12

DENIED as MOOT. Unless otherwise stipulated, Credigy is required to file an Answer to the FAC

13

within the time period set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15

Dated: June 20, 2013

16
17

_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-05811-EJD
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE