Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04797/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04797-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 52 and 53. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY WANG, an individual, on his own

behalf and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4797 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL AFTER

PLEADINGS ARE FINALIZED

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendant Asset Acceptance LLC to provide further

responses to various discovery requests.1

 Asset requests that the Court either deny the motion or

continue it until after the pleadings are finalized and the parties know what claims are at issue in the

case.

The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff’s motion is premature. Prior to reassignment to

the undersigned, Judge Conti issued an order dismissing most of plaintiff’s claims. On April 29, 2010,

plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding new claims and a new party, Trans Union LLC. Asset has

moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and a hearing is scheduled on that motion on July 9, 2010.

According to Asset, the pending discovery requests relate to claims that have already been dismissed

by the Court, and/or claims that are the subject of Asset’s most recent motion to dismiss. Under these

circumstances, the Court finds that it is more efficient to finalize the pleadings before resolving the

parties’ discovery disputes. 

Case 3:09-cv-04797-SI Document 60 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel without prejudice to renewal after

the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint. If any claims survive the

pending motion to dismiss, the parties are directed to engage in a further meet and confer regarding any

discovery disputes prior to bringing the dispute to the Court for resolution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04797-SI Document 60 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 2