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)

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