Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07359/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07359-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA IRWIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, N.A., and DOES I to X,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07359 WHA

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO REMAND, (2) DENYING

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND COSTS, AND (3)

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this action under the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, plaintiff moves to

remand this action back to California state court for lack of federal question jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff also moves for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in filing and briefing the extant

motion. Defendant does not oppose the motion to remand, it does, however, oppose plaintiff’s

motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant had no objective reason to

remove this action, so plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to

remand this action to state court is GRANTED. 

STATEMENT

Some time in 2003 or 2004, plaintiff Linda Irwin’s personal identifying information was

stolen (Compl. ¶ 8). Unknown persons used her information to open up several credit card

accounts, including one with defendant Bank of America, National Association, N.A. (now

Case 3:06-cv-07359-WHA Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

known as FIA Card Services, N.A.), in Irwin’s name and without her knowledge (ibid.). Irwin

discovered the theft in April 2005 and disputed the accounts by contacting lenders, and filing

police reports and fraud affidavits (id. at ¶ 9). All of the accounts were eventually closed except

the account with defendant (id. at ¶ 10). The fraudulent charges from that account remained on

plaintiff’s credit report. 

Plaintiff filed this action in California state court on October 17, 2005, alleging

violations of the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Consumer Credit

Reporting Agencies Act, breach of identity theft law, libel, and unfair business practices under

California Civil Code Section 17200 et seq. Her claim under the California Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act contained references to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

It alleges that defendant failed to cease collection activity on debts that it knew were a result of

identity theft, a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). Defendant removed the action on November

30, 2006.

On January 4, 2007, plaintiff filed this motion to remand for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that the action never should have been removed because the

complaint asserted no federal claims or defenses. Defendant argues that this motion should

never have been brought because parties were very close to stipulating to remand. Defendant’s

counsel declares that in December 2006, they had struck a deal with plaintiff’s counsel to

stipulate to remand if plaintiff’s counsel would verify that there were no federal claims asserted

(Rudolph Decl. ¶ 3). Plaintiff’s counsel made a settlement offer on January 2, 2007, but filed

this motion on January 4, 2007, before defendant responded to the offer (id. at ¶ 9). After that,

parties again attempted to stipulate to remand, but plaintiff asked to be reimbursed for

attorney’s fees and costs in bring the motion to remand before going forward with the

stipulation (id. at ¶ 10). Defendant refused. 

ANALYSIS

Defendant does not oppose the motion to remand now that plaintiff has certified that the

complaint has no federal claims. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be GRANTED.

Case 3:06-cv-07359-WHA Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in bringing the motion remains. A

district court may grant plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing a motion to

remand. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). “[A]bsent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should not be

awarded when the removing party had an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Martin v.

Franklin Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005). 

Defendant argues that the complaint appeared to state a stand-alone claim under the

federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. Plaintiff pleads a violation

of California Civil Code Section 1788.10(c) which requires all debt-collection agencies to

comply with 15 U.S.C. 1692b–j. She alleges that defendant misrepresented the status of the

alleged debts on her credit report (Compl. ¶ 14a). Following that, she alleges defendants

violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b) by refusing to stop collection activity on a debt it knew to be the

result of identity theft (id. at ¶ 14b). Plaintiff argues in response that this was actually a statelaw claim because the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act expressly incorporated

some provisions of the federal Act. Though this is the case, defendant’s assumption that there

was a stand-alone federal claim is still reasonable. 

Plaintiff’s argument may have ultimately won the day on the motion to remand, but it is

not sufficient to show that defendant had no objective basis to remove this action. Now that the

parties have agreed to remand, a grant of attorney’s fees is simply not warranted. Plaintiff’s

accusations that defendant had a dilatory motive are similarly inapposite. From the facts

presented, it appears that parties were close to stipulating to a remand but failed to work out the

final details before plaintiff filed this motion. There is no indication of bad faith or intent to

delay by defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For all the above-stated reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED, and

plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED. Seeing that no further argument is

necessary, the hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07359-WHA Document 18 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3