Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00001-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY BARKER and KATHY KENOLE, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:09-cv-00001-GEB-JFM

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

PHILIP B. AVILA; CHERYL C. KOFF; ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

BORTON & PETRINI, LLP; CHRISTIAN ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND

P. HURST; CHELSEA VANPETTEN; DAWN ) PLAINTIFFS’ COUNTER-MOTION

HARLEMAN; SHLLY PREHM; G.O.N.E., ) FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES*

a sole proprietorship; G.O.N.E., )

INC.; and COMPLEX, )

)

Defendants. )

)

This order addresses four pending motions (Docket Nos. 77, 

83, 87, 101), two of which are motions for summary judgment (Docket

Nos. 77, 87), which are denied as moot since Plaintiffs filed an

amended complaint on December 14, 2009. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc.

v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989)

(stating an amended complaint supercedes the prior complaint). The

two remaining motions are decided below.

Case 2:09-cv-00001-GEB -JFM Document 131 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

I. Plaintiffs’ Counter-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs filed a counter-motion on November 11, 2009 

(Docket No. 101), in which they seek $136,577.00 in attorneys’ fees

and expenses from G.O.N.E., G.O.N.E., Inc., Christian P. Hurst, Cheryl

C. Koff, Chelsea Van Petten, Dawn Harleman, and Shelly Prehm (the

“Debt Collector Defendants”). Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to a

mandatory award of fees under the California Anti-Strategic Lawsuit

Against Public Participation (“Anti-SLAPP”) statute because the Debt

Collector Defendants “intended to cause unnecessary delay” by filing a

frivolous Anti-SLAPP motion. (Plts.’ Counter-Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees

4:15-17.) On July 30, 2009, the Debt Collector Defendants filed a

“Notice of Adoption of the Argument and Authorities of the Attorney

Defendants” in which they stated: “All parties will please take notice

that these Defendants do support and adopt all of the arguments and

authorities submitted by the attorney Defendants for the hearing on

the above date.” However, Plaintiffs objection that the Debt

Collector Defendants “Notice of Adoption” was not timely filed under

the applicable local rule was sustained. (Order, Docket No. 71.) 

Therefore, the Debt Collector Defendants were not allowed to adopt the

motion. Since Plaintiffs’ motion is erroneously premised on the Debt

Collector Defendants’ “Notice of Adoption” having been timely filed,

Plaintiffs’ attorney fee motion is denied.

II. The Attorney Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Philip B. Avila and Borton & Petrini, LLP (“The Attorney 

Defendants”) filed a motion on October 8, 2009 (Docket No. 83), in

which they seek attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in moving to strike

Plaintiffs’ state law claims under the Anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiffs

counter the motion is premature since Plaintiffs were granted leave to

Case 2:09-cv-00001-GEB -JFM Document 131 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, in

which they re-alleged two of the four state-law claims which were

alleged in their initial complaint. Since the initial complaint has

been amended, the Attorney Defendants have not shown their motion is

ripe for decision. See Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Co.,

377 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating prevailing defendants on

anti-SLAPP motions are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, but

indicating an attorney fee motion is premature if plaintiff is granted

leave to file an amended complaint); see also Echostar Satellite,

L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc., 2009 WL 1668712, *7 (S.D. Cal. 2009)

(“Verizon establishes that an award of attorneys' fees is not

appropriate where the plaintiff eliminates the meritless state-law

claims from the subsequently filed amended complaint.”). Therefore,

the Attorney Defendants’ motion is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Attorney Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 77) is DENIED, the Attorney

Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 83) is DENIED, the

Debt Collector Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 87)

is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ counter-motion for attorneys’ fees (Docket

No. 101) is DENIED.

Dated: January 12, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-00001-GEB -JFM Document 131 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 3