Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237-9/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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE —No. C-04-03237

RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 2-17-2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANNE M. PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; B. BROWN., and DOES

1 through 20,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03237 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT I.C.

SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[Re Docket Nos. 124, 130, 132, 134, 137]

Defendant I.C. Systems moves for reconsideration of the portion of this court's November 8,

2005 order which granted plaintiff Susanne Palmer summary judgment that I.C. Systems failed to

report a debt as disputed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). Palmer moves for leave to file an

amended complaint. For the reasons given below, the court grants both motions.

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I.C. Systems moves for reconsideration of this court's November 8, 2005 order, claiming that

(1) this court erroneously determined that Palmer's complaint could be read to allege a claim for

failing to report a debt as disputed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8), (2) the evidence submitted

was insufficient to grant Palmer summary judgment on her claim for failing to report a debt as

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 140 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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 Furthermore, I.C. Systems is now clearly on notice that Palmer may be alleging a

claim for failing to report a debt as disputed in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE —No. C-04-03237

RMW

JAH 2

disputed, and (3) I.C. Systems should be granted leave to present a defense under 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692k(c). The court agrees with I.C. Systems that the evidence relied up by the court in granting

summary judgment—a portion of the deposition of an I.C. Systems employee—was not sufficient

evidence upon which to grant Palmer summary judgment. The section of this court's November 8,

2005 order granting Palmer summary judgment on her claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) is therefore

vacated. The court will not address I.C. System's other two alleged grounds for reconsideration of

the order, as they are rendered moot by the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.1

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

On January 13, 2006, Palmer filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The

hearing on this motion was set for February 17, 2006, making I.C. System's opposition due three

weeks before, on January 27, 2006. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). Without any explanation, and in spite of

this court's recent warning that "further tardy filings may not be considered by the court," I.C.

Systems did not file its opposition to Palmer's motion for leave until late on January 29, 2006. The

court feels its reminder to file briefs on time has been ignored; therefore, I.C. System's untimely

opposition will not be considered. However, even if the opposition were considered, the result

would be the same.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires leave of court to amend a complaint except at

the very early stages of litigation. Leave, though, is to "be freely given when justice so requires," 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), and it is generally not appropriate to deny leave "unless it is clear . . . that the

complaint could not be saved by amendment." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Palmer can satisfy this low burden. Her discovery has purportedly revealed new causes of

action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The proposed amended complaint she has

submitted is not obviously futile. Palmer is therefore granted leave to file her amended complaint.

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 140 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE —No. C-04-03237

RMW

JAH 3

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court

1. grants I.C. System's motion for reconsideration and vacates the portion of this court's

November 8, 2005 order granting Palmer summary judgment on her claim under 15

U.S.C. § 1692e(8); and

2. grants Palmer's motion for leave to file her amended complaint.

A case management conference shall be held on May 19, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6. The

parties shall file a joint case management conference statement no later than May 12, 2006.

DATED: 2/17/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 140 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE —No. C-04-03237

RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com

Brian Lewis Bromberg brian@brianbromberg.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Andrew Steinheimer asteinheimer@mpbf.com

Mark Ellis mellis@mpbf.com

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com 

Counsel for Third-Party Defendant:

Rosalie Euna Kim ekim@reedsmith.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2-17-2006 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 140 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 4