Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00785/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00785-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH E. GERBER, 

an individual,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07-cv-0785 FCD JFM PS

vs.

CITIGROUP, INC., etc., et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A.,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

JOSEPH E. GERBER, and ROES 1 - 10,

Counterdefendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an amended complaint alleging, inter alia,

violation of the Truth in Lending Act, and was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule

72-302(c)(21). On November 24, 2009, the stay of this action was stayed pending completion of

settlement negotiations among the parties. On January 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a status report in

which he informs the court that settlement discussions were unavailing and requests this court set

this matter for status conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule 240. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted. The stay of this action will be lifted and the case

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 186 Filed 01/15/10 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

2

will be set for status conference on March 4, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned in

Courtroom #26. The parties are reminded of their obligation to file status reports, pursuant to the

September 30, 2009 order, no later than seven days prior to the status conference. (Docket No.

177.)

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel joinder and

defendants’ requests for judicial notice. Upon review of the motion and the documents in

support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT MAKES THE

FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

On July 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to compel joinder of all other defendants

as parties counterclaimants in the counterclaim of defendant Citibank. Plaintiff’s motion is

without merit.

First, none of the other defendants are parties to the credit card contract at issue in

the counterclaim. Indeed, the contract was between Citibank and plaintiff alone. As for

Citigroup, the parent corporation of Citibank, the record demonstrates that Citigroup has

consistently disclaimed an interest in the account and denied it is a proper party to this action at

all. (Citigroup Opp’n at 6.) The remaining defendants’ relationship to plaintiff was based on

efforts to collect the debt and, as their counsel point out, their interests are protected by virtue of

Citibank’s counterclaim. Because none of these defendants were party to the credit card contract,

they are not necessary parties to the counterclaim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a); United States v. Bowen,

172 F.3d 682, 688 (9th Cir. 1999). Despite plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, these

defendants would not have a valid claim against plaintiff.

Second, plaintiff’s arguments that these defendant “may” attempt to seek setoff or

“may” file their own counterclaim are speculative and unavailing. Citibank filed its counterclaim

on April 11, 2008. Since that date, none of the other defendants have filed, or expressed an

interest in filing, a counterclaim against plaintiff. Their oppositions to the instant motion

confirm their lack of interest in filing one. Moreover, any such attempt would be untimely (see

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 186 Filed 01/15/10 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

3

January 29, 2009 findings and recommendations at 17-18), and unavailing given their

documented positions herein. Plaintiff’s motion to compel joinder will be denied.

Finally, the court notes that at least two defendants filed separate requests for

judicial notice of filings contained within the court record and also attached copies of those

filings to the request. All parties are advised that this court has electronic access to the pleadings

on file herein and it is unnecessary to re-file copies of documents already contained in the court

record. Moreover, rather than filing separate requests for judicial notice, counsel may, in the

future, simply refer to specific passages or documents contained in the court record. The court

will take notice of those filings sua sponte without a formal request. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stay of this action is lifted.

2. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for March 4, 2010, at 11:00 a.m.

in courtroom #26 before the undersigned. 

3. Each party shall file a status report, no later than seven days prior to the status

conference, that complies with the September 30, 2009 order (Docket No. 177).

4. Plaintiff’s July 30, 2009 motion to compel joinder is denied. (Docket No.

160.)

5. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are granted; however, in the future,

counsel shall refrain from filing separate documents seeking request for judicial notice of filings

contained within the court record. (Docket Nos. 167-170; 173.)

DATED: January 14, 2010.

/001; gerber.mtj

Case 2:07-cv-00785-FCD-KJN Document 186 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 3