Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03792/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03792-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUDMILA KAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL 

BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03792-BLF 

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute

was heard on February 4, 2016. The Court has considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument 

presented at the hearing. For the reasons stated on the record and below, the Court DEFERS 

ruling on Defendant’s motion to strike.

At the hearing, the Court discussed its concerns and provided its thoughts about the 

pending motion and this case with the parties. However, the Court cannot yet rule on Defendant’s 

anti-SLAPP motion. While in California state court, parties faced with an anti-SLAPP motion are 

not given an opportunity to amend their complaint, the procedural rules are different in federal 

court. The Ninth Circuit has held that “granting a defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike a 

Plaintiff’s initial complaint without granting the plaintiff leave to amend would directly collide 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s policy favoring liberal amendments.” See Verizon Del. Inc. v. Covad 

Communs. Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2004). At the hearing and in her opposition papers, 

Plaintiff indicated that she would like the opportunity to amend her complaint.

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff shall 

Case 5:15-cv-03792-BLF Document 32 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

file an amended complaint on or before February 18, 2016. If an amended complaint is filed, the 

Court will MOOT the pending anti-SLAPP motion. If no amended complaint is filed, the Court 

will rule on the motion. Plaintiff may not add new claims in the amended complaint without 

seeking leave of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03792-BLF Document 32 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2