Linlor v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 107

ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 93 ) is Denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 01/17/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JAMES LINLOR,

Case No.: 17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER

CHASE BANKCARD
SERVICES, INC. and CHASE
BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

HAYES, Judge:

18
19
20

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Defendants
Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Bankcard Services, Inc. (ECF No. 93).
I.

Background

21

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor filed the First Amended Complaint (ECF

22

No. 22) (the “FAC”). The FAC brings a claim against Defendants Chase Bankcard

23

Services, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

24

(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (ECF No. 22 at 9).

25

On May 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

26

70). On August 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

27

(ECF No. 90). On August 21, 2018 Defendants filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (ECF

28
1
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC

1

No. 93). Plaintiff did not file opposition. On September 17, 2018, Defendants filed a

2

Notice of Non-receipt of Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (ECF No. 103).

3

II.

Contentions

4

Defendants contend that Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, “asserted a frivolous claim that

5

defendants . . . violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”)

6

by furnishing inaccurate information regarding his credit card account. The only allegedly

7

inaccurate information were supposed fraudulent charges.” (ECF No. 93 at 3). Defendants

8

assert that “there never were any fraudulent charges and Plaintiff knew this when he filed

9

his Complaint.” Id. Defendants contend that they are entitled to $101,650.90 in attorneys’

10

fees. Id. Defendants separately contend that the Court should grant the motion because

11

Plaintiff’s failure to file opposition constitutes consent to the granting of Defendants’

12

motion under Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). (ECF No. 103 at 2).

13

III.

Legal Standard

14

The FCRA permits the prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees if an action was

15

“filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n(c); 1681o(b); Rouse

16

v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, 603 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 2010) rev’d on other grounds by

17

Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013); River Oaks Homeowners Prot. Comm.,

18

Inc. v. Edington & Assocs., 32 F. App'x 929, 931 (9th Cir. 2002). The term “bad faith” is

19

not defined in the statute. In general, bad faith “is not simply bad judgment or negligence,

20

but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral

21

obliquity; . . . it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or

22

ill will.” Black's Law Dictionary 139 (6th ed. 1990); accord United States v. Manchester

23

Farming P'ship, 315 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying Black's definition of bad

24

faith); Shipley v. Trans Union Corp., 2006 WL 1515594, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006)

25

(same).

26

IV.

Ruling of the Court

27

The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion

28

pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a
2
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC

1

motion for failure to respond. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil

2

Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the

3

manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the

4

granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” Generally, public policy

5

favors disposition of motions on their merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138

6

F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court declines to grant Defendants’ Motion on the basis

7

of Plaintiff’s failure to file opposition.

8

In this case, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the FCRA when they failed to

9

report to the credit rating agencies that Plaintiff disputed the charges at issue. (ECF No.

10

22 at 6; 83 at 4–5). Defendants prevailed on summary judgment because the relevant case

11

law required Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting to state a claim

12

under the FCRA, and Plaintiff ultimately failed to do so. (ECF No. 90 at 4). Although

13

Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite facts to maintain a FCRA claim, Defendants have

14

failed to establish that Plaintiff’s actions in initiating this matter constituted more than bad

15

judgment or negligence. Defendants have not established that Plaintiff brought this action

16

in subjective bad faith or for purposes of harassment, and the Court declines to award

17

attorneys’ fees in this matter.

18
19
20
21

V.

Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No.

93) is DENIED.
Dated: January 17, 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC