Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01207/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01207-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Alan BENJAMIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Tim COKER, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1207-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Re: Statute of

Limitations (Dkt. 28). The Court will require Plaintiff to respond to this motion. No reply

will be permitted.

BACKGROUND

Defendants ask the Court to reconsider a portion of an Order issued on November 3,

2006. Specifically, Defendants argue that the claims made in ¶¶ 28 thru 55 of Plaintiff's

Complaint are time-barred under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Congress

amended the FCRA in 2003 by adding a general discovery rule that allows plaintiffs to bring

an action for the earlier of: (1) two years after the date of discovery of a violation of the

FCRA, or (2) five years after the date on which the violation occurs. 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. The

pre-2003 version of the FCRA provided only a limited discovery rule for cases involving a

defendant's willful misrepresentation of material information. 

Beyond the instant Motion for Reconsideration pending before the Court, Defendants

also have an outstanding Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17). However, the Court

Case 2:06-cv-01207-SMM Document 30 Filed 01/18/07 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 -

issued a stay on the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure so that Plaintiff could conduct discovery to adequately respond to

Defendants's motion. (Dkt. 27). In addition, a Scheduling Conference is currently set for

January 24, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration on December 4, 2006. The Order

they ask the Court to reconsider was issued on November 3, 2006. Pursuant to Rule 7.2(g)

of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local

Rules"), "[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed not later

than ten (10) days after the filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion." Thus, the

motion to reconsider was untimely because Defendants have not shown good cause. 

However, rather than denying Defendants' motion pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g), the Court

finds it more prudent to resolve the statute of limitations issue immediately. Whether

Plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the FCRA is purely a question of law and the Court finds

that Plaintiff can adequately address this issue without conducting additional discovery. 

Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to respond the Defendants' Motion for

Reconsideration Re: Statute of Limitations (Dkt. 28) and address why the claims made in ¶¶

28 thru 55 of his Complaint are not time-barred under the FCRA. 

In addition, since the statute of limitations issue has the potential to significantly

impact the course of the entire action, the Court will vacate the Scheduling Conference

currently set for January 24, 2007. This conference will be rescheduled once the motion for

reconsideration is resolved. Finally, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. 17) without prejudice and allow Defendants's to re-file their motion after the

motion for reconsideration is resolved.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through February 2, 2007, to

file a response to Defendants's Motion to Reconsider.

Case 2:06-cv-01207-SMM Document 30 Filed 01/18/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for January 24,

2007, is VACATED. The Court will reschedule the Scheduling Conference after ruling on

the motion for reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants's Motion for Summary Judgment

(Dkt. 17) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants may re-file a motion for

summary judgment after the Court rules on the motion for reconsideration.

DATED this 17th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01207-SMM Document 30 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3