Valencia v. California Business Bureau Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 22 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/29/2017. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JUAN VALENCIA, Case No. 16-cv-02953-BAS-JLB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY 14 15 16 17 v. [ECF No. 22] CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU, INC., et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file a 21 surreply to Defendant California Business Bureau, Inc. (“CBB”)’s special motion to 22 strike under California’s statute discouraging strategic lawsuits against public 23 participation (“SLAPP”), Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant 24 opposes. (ECF No. 23.) 25 Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike Plaintiff’s California 26 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”) claim based on 27 California’s litigation privilege. (ECF No. 8.) In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that 28 the litigation privilege should not apply to his Rosenthal Act claim because of two –1– 16cv2953 1 cases: (1) People v. Persolve, LLC, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1267 (2013), and (2) Komarova 2 v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 324 (2009). (ECF No. 16.) In 3 its reply, Defendant responds to Plaintiff’s discussion of Persolve and Komarova. 4 (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s discussion of these cases—and 5 specifically Defendant’s claim that there should be a case-by-case analysis in this 6 context—is a new argument that should not be considered by the Court without it 7 first granting Plaintiff leave to file a surreply. (ECF No. 22.) The Court disagrees. 8 Defendant’s reply does not impermissibly raise new arguments. Rather, it responds 9 to Plaintiff’s claim that Persolve and Komarova show the litigation privilege does 10 not apply to his Rosenthal Act claim. 11 Further, Plaintiff argues granting him leave to file a surreply is appropriate 12 because Defendant introduces new factual arguments in its reply. (ECF No. 22.) 13 Having reviewed the evidence submitted in support of Defendant’s reply, the Court 14 concludes granting Plaintiff leave to file a surreply on this basis is neither necessary 15 nor warranted. 16 17 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 22). IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 DATED: March 29, 2017 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –2– 16cv2953

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?