Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00253/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00253-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

1

Docket No. 22. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LOPEZ REYES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENOSIAN & MIELE, LLP, a California

limited liability partnership, and KENNETH

JOHN MIELE, individually and in his official

capacity, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00253 MJJ

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Before the Court is Defendants Kenosian & Miele, LLP, and Kenneth Miele’s

(“Defendants”) 

Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.1

 Plaintiff Manuel Reyes (“Plaintiff” or “Reyes”)

opposes the motion. After careful consideration of the motion, the supporting and opposing

memoranda, the Court hereby orders the parties submit supplemental briefing.

The issue now before the Court is whether the content of Defendants’ state court

complaint—which serves as the sole basis for Plaintiff’s state law Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection

Practice Act (“RFDCPA”) claims—is privileged under California’s litigation privilege, Cal. Civ.

Code § 47(b). Were the litigation privilege to apply broadly to RFDCPA claims, it could effectively

immunize certain conduct that the RFDCPA prohibits. See Oei v. North Star Capital Acquisitions,

LLC, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1100 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (stating “[w]ere the [litigation] privilege to apply

Case 3:07-cv-00253-MJJ Document 38 Filed 08/06/07 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

broadly to Rosenthal Act claims . . . it would effectively immunize conduct that the Act prohibits”);

but see Taylor v. Quall, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1067-69 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (finding litigation privilege

applied to the plaintiff’s RFDCPA claims.). Given the apparent conflict between the application

California litigation privilege and liability under the RFDCPA, the Court finds that supplemental

briefing on the issue of statutory construction and legislative intent would be helpful in resolving the

issues before the Court. 

As California courts have noted, the principles of statutory construction under California law

are well-settled. Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 39 Cal. 4th 1164, 1190-91 (2006) (stating that

to discern the Legislature’s intent, courts must first turn to the statutory language itself; but if the

language is ambiguous then to legislative history.) Additionally, in situations harmonizing

disparate, and sometimes discordant, statutory provisions, courts are guided by the maxim that,

where statutes are otherwise irreconcilable, later and more specific enactments prevail, pro tanto,

over earlier and more general ones. Id. at 1208. (citations omitted). Finally, it is also a well

recognized principle of statutory construction that when the Legislature has carefully employed a

term in one place and has excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded. Ford

Motor Co. v. County of Tulane, 145 Cal. App. 3d 688, 691 (Ct. Cal. App. 1983) (citing Bott v.

American Hydrocarbon Corp., 458 F.2d 229, 233 (5th Cir. 1972); City of Burbank v. Gen. Elec. Co., 

329 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964)). 

In light of the apparent conflict between the application California litigation privilege and

liability under the RFDCPA, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the

issue of statutory construction and legislative intent of the applicable statutory provisions. 

Defendants’ brief shall be filed not later than August 15, 2007. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed

not later than August 24, 2007. The parties’ briefs shall exceed 7 pages in length and shall address

only the issues identified herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August ___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00253-MJJ Document 38 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2