Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00785/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00785-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH E. GERBER, an individual, Case No: CIV S-07-0785 WBS JFM PS

Plaintiff,

 -vsCITIGROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

dba CITIBANK, CITIBANK N.A., 

CITIBANK SD N.A., CITIBANK 

(SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., CITIBANK 

CORPORATION, CITIBANK USA, 

CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC. (USA), 

CITICORP, CITI, CITICARD, CITICARDS, 

CITI CARDS/CBSDNA, UNIVERSAL CARD 

SERVICES CORP., UNIVERSAL CARD 

SERVICES, AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD 

SERVICES, AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD, 

AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES CORP., 

UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES/CBSDNA, 

UNIVERSAL CARD/CBSDNA UNIVERSAL 

CARD, UNIVERSAL BANK and UNIVERSAL 

BANK, N.A.; an Ohio corporation; TAMARA 

HENRY, an individual or the alias of an individual; 

HARRIS & ZIDE, a California partnership; 

FLINT C. ZIDE, an individual; ARTHUR W. 

SWACHMAN, an individual; ROBERT LEE, 

an individual; and, CHRIS SEKI, an individual,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 48 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a complaint alleging, inter alia, violation of the

Truth in Lending Act, and was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On June 20, 2007, defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., filed a motion to

compel arbitration and to stay the action, noticed for hearing on August 8, 2007. (Docket No.

27.) On June 21, 2007, defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., filed a motion to compel

arbitration and to stay the action, noticed for hearing on August 8, 2007. (Docket No. 38.) These

motions were both signed on June 20, 2007 and appear to be duplicate filings. Hearing on these

motions was continued to August 16, 2007. (June 22, 2007 Minute Order.)

On June 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses

contained in United Collection Bureau’s answer, noticed for hearing on July 26, 2007. (Docket

No. 44.) 

On June 13, 2007, defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur W.

Shwachman filed a motion to dismiss the second, seventh and seventeenth claims, noticed for

hearing on July 19, 2007. (Docket No. 11.) That hearing was continued to July 26, 2007. (June

19, 2007 Minute Order.) On June 18, 2007, defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur

W. Shwachman filed a motion to dismiss the seventh and seventeenth claims, noticed for hearing

on July 26, 2007. (Docket No. 19.) On June 21, 2007, defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide

and Arthur W. Shwachman filed a motion to dismiss the seventh, fifteenth, sixteenth and

seventeenth claims, noticed for hearing on July 26, 2007. (Docket No. 32.) It is unclear whether

defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur W. Shwachman intended each new motion to

dismiss to replace the former, or whether the third motion simply replaces the second. 

On June 28, 2007, defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur W.

Shwachman filed a motion to file a supplemental motion to dismiss claim two based on the

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 48 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 “The Noerr-Pennington doctrine derives from the First Amendment's guarantee of ‘the 1

right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ ” See Sosa v.

DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. I). “Under the

Noerr- Pennington doctrine, those who petition any department of the government for redress are

generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct.” Sosa, 437 F.3d at 929

(citing Empress LLC v. City & County of S.F., 419 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.2005)). “Under the

Noerr-Pennington rule of statutory construction, [the courts] must construe federal statutes so as

to avoid burdening conduct that implicates the protections afforded by the Petition Clause unless

the statute clearly provides otherwise.” Sosa, 437 F.3d at 931.

 Defendants need not refile requests for judicial notice or exhibits, but may refer to the 2

previous filings in the renewed motion by filed date or docket number. 

3

Noerr-Pennington doctrine, noticed for hearing August 2, 2007. (Docket No. 45.) These 1

moving defendants argue that judicial economy will be served by allowing the filing of the

supplemental motion and to have “the entire action against these Defendants . . . disposed of in

one hearing.” (Id. at 3.) 

Good cause appearing, all pending motions to dismiss filed by defendants Harris

& Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur W. Shwachman will be denied without prejudice to the filing of

one renewed motion to dismiss containing all of these defendants’ challenges to plaintiff’s

complaint. The renewed motion shall be filed on or before July 25, 2007, and shall be noticed

2

for hearing on August 23, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

In the interest of judicial economy, the other pending motions shall also be

continued for hearing to August 23, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Opposition to

all motions shall be filed fourteen days prior to the hearing; replies shall be filed no later than

five court days prior to the hearing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Harris & Zide, Flint C. Zide and Arthur W. Shwachman June 28,

2007 motion to file a supplemental motion to dismiss is partially granted. (Docket No. 45.) 

These moving defendants’ motions to dismiss, filed June 13, 2007 (Docket No. 11), June 18,

2007 (Docket No. 19.) and June 21, 2007 (Docket No. 32), are dismissed without prejudice to the

filing of one renewed motion to dismiss containing all of these defendants’ challenges to

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 48 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

plaintiff’s complaint in one motion to dismiss filed on or before July 25, 2007; said renewed

motion shall be noticed for hearing on August 23, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

2. The June 20, 2007 motion to compel arbitration filed by defendant Citibank

(South Dakota), N.A. (Docket No. 27), is dismissed as duplicative of the June 21, 2007 filing.

3. Hearing on the June 21, 2007 motion to compel arbitration and to stay the

action (Docket No. 38), filed by defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., is continued from

August 16, 2007 to August 23, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

4. Plaintiff’s June 25, 2007 motion to strike certain affirmative defenses

contained in United Collection Bureau’s answer (Docket No. 44) is continued from July 26,

2007, to August 23, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

5. Opposition to all motions shall be filed fourteen days prior to the hearing;

replies shall be filed no later than five court days prior to the hearing. Local Rule 78-230.

DATED: July 2, 2007.

/001; gerber.con

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 48 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4