Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07128/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07128-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

THOMAS LUTGE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ESKANOS & ADLER, P.C., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07128 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

MARCH 23, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) In opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff submitted a declaration in which he states

that Defendants: “boasted to me they were the best debt collectors in town, and that they

were going ‘to come and get me.’” (Declaration of Thomas Lutge, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff further

states that Defendants threatened him by saying “We are going to get you.” (Id., ¶17.) 

Case 3:06-cv-07128-JSW Document 22 Filed 03/22/07 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

Why or why not is Plaintiff’s declaration regarding such statements sufficient to

demonstrate a prima facie case that, if proved, would support a judgment in his favor

with respect to the section 1788.10(a) of the California Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act (“FDCPA”)? See Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 90,

105 (2004).

(2) Plaintiff states in his declaration that between February and April 2006, Defendants

“repeatedly call[ed] him twice a day demanding payment.” (Declaration of Thomas

Lutge, ¶ 25.) However, Plaintiff does not specify on how many occasions Defendants

called him twice a day, the times of such calls, or the content of Defendants’ alleged

statements on such calls. Does Plaintiff have any more detailed information regarding

these calls that would assist the Court in determining whether such calls, if true, would

be considered unreasonable and harassing pursuant to California Civil Code §

1788.11(e)?

(3) To have standing to assert his claim under California Business and Professions Code

section 17200, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he “has suffered injury in fact and has lost

money or property as a result of such unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §

17204; see also Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California, 143 Cal. App. 4th 796, 802 (2006). 

What money or property, if any, does Plaintiff contend he lost as a result of Defendants’

alleged violations of the FDCPA?

(4) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a copy of the entire transcript of a proceeding on

Defendants’ application for a workplace violence restraining order. Neither the

opposition brief nor counsel’s declaration cites to any particular portions of the

transcript or argues why the proceeding is relevant to the motion to strike. Plaintiff must

identify with reasonable particularity the evidence on which he relies. See Keenan v.

Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55

F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995)) (stating that it is not a district court’s task to “scour the

record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact”). What specific portions of the

transcript, if any, does Plaintiff contend supports his opposition to the motion to strike,

and on what basis?

(5) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07128-JSW Document 22 Filed 03/22/07 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

Case 3:06-cv-07128-JSW Document 22 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3