Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07128/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07128-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS LUTGE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ESKANOS & ADLER, P.C., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07128 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now before the Court is the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint filed by

Plaintiff Thomas Lutge (“Lutge”). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition

without oral argument and it is hereby deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly,

the hearing set for October 19, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the

parties’ papers and considered their arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby

denies Lutge’s motion.

BACKGROUND

In this action, Lutge alleges that Defendants attempted to collect a debt that he did not

owe and that Defendants used improper methods to attempt to collect the money. (Second

Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶¶ 10, 13-15, 23-25, 30.) The conduct that Lutge alleges

Defendants engaged in related to their debt collection efforts occurred between February and

April of 2006. (SAC, ¶ 14.) According to Lutge, over a year later on July 25, 2007, two

strangers attacked him and threatened to kill his daughter if he did not dismiss the present

lawsuit against defendant Ryan White and “his boss.” (Declaration of Thomas Lutge, ¶¶ 2-5.) 

Case 3:06-cv-07128-JSW Document 123 Filed 10/17/07 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

Based on this alleged event, Lutge seeks to add a claim for aiding and abetting an assault and

battery against defendants Eskanos & Adler, Irwin Eskanos, and Ryan White. 

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend “shall be freely given

when justice so requires.” Id. The general rule is that amendment of the pleading is permitted

unless the opposing party makes a showing of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing

side, or futility of amendment. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Here, the amendment would be futile because the Court does not have jurisdiction over

the proposed state-law claim. Federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law

claims to the extent they are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A state

law claim is “part of the same case or controversy” as a federal claim when the two “derive

from a common nucleus of operative fact ... such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to

try them in one judicial proceeding.” Kuba v. 1-A Agric. Ass’n, 387 F.3d 850, 855 (9th Cir.

2004) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). Lutge’s

federal claims based on the alleged misconduct in attempting to collect a debt in early 2006 do

not “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” as the alleged assault and threat

regarding the present lawsuit. Rather, the facts necessary to proves Lutge’s debt collection

claims are entire separate from the facts necessary to prove the proposed aiding and abetting

assault and battery claim. Therefore, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over the

proposed state-law claim and thus, DENIES Lutge’s motion for leave to amend as futile. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07128-JSW Document 123 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2