Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR RODRIGUEZ JR. dba PACIFIC

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

AMERICAN EXPRESS, ADVANTA, )

BANK ONE, BANK OF AMERICA, )

CITIBANK, DISCOVER, FORD )

CREDIT, HOME DEPOT, LOWES )

COMPANIES, INC., INTERNAL )

REVENUE SERVICE, NEXTEL )

COMMUNICATIONS, PINE )

MOUNTAIN LAKE, U.S. BANKCORP, )

VALLEY FIRST CREDIT UNION, )

WELLS FARGO BANK, NBMA, and )

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5949 AWI LJO

ORDER GRANTING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS

TO ALL REMAINING

CLAIMS AGAINST

DEFENDANT VALLEY FIRST

CREDIT UNION

Documents # 169 and # 200

This is an action by plaintiff Oscar Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to the Soldier’s and

Sailor’s Act Civil Relief Act, renamed pursuant to 2003 amendments the Servicemembers

Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), for damages and injunctive relief. On April 7, 2006, the court

granted summary judgment on motions for summary judgment of three of the four remaining

parties in this case. Summary Judgment was denied as to defendant Valley First Credit Union

because the court determined the provisions of the SCRA required that the interest rate charged

on Plaintiff’s debt be reduced to the statutory maximum of 6% as of the date of entry into

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 209 Filed 06/08/06 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

active duty, not from the date of notice of entry into active duty as Valley First had used as the

starting date for reduction of interest charges.

Valley First bases its motion for reconsideration on the fact that, subsequent to the

court’s decision of April 7, Valley First recalculated interest charges on debt owed by Plaintiff

based on a reduced rate of interest commencing with the date of Plaintiff’s entry into active

duty. From a procedural perspective, a motion to reconsider, whether pursuant to Local Rule

78-230(k) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is intended to correct an order

or judgment that was made in consideration of erroneous facts or without consideration of facts

that were not or could not have been known at the time the issue was decided. Motions to

reconsider are not appropriate where, as here, the court’s prior decision was based on facts that

were correct at the time of the order and where the new facts represent actions taken by the

parties after, and in accordance with, the court’s prior order. Valley First’s motion should have

been styled as a subsequent motion for summary judgment. Because there is no opposition to

Valley First’s motion, the court will construe the motion as a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine

issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Poller v.

Columbia Broadcast System, 368 U.S. 464, 467 (1962); Jung v. FMC Corp., 755 F.2d 708, 710

(9th Cir. 1985); Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1313 (9th

Cir. 1984). In its order of April 7, 2006, the court set forth the obligations of Valley First and

the other moving parties to the adjust interest charges as of the date the servicemember enters

into active duty in accordance with the provisions of the SCRA. Valley First now alleges, and

provides evidence to show, that subsequent to the court’s April 7 order, Valley First did in fact

make the required recalculation of Plaintiff’s outstanding interest charges. Plaintiff has not

denied Valley First’s allegation that it properly recalculated Plaintiff’s interest charges, nor has

Plaintiff opposed Valley First’s motion. The court finds that Valley First, having provided

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 209 Filed 06/08/06 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

undisputed evidence of compliance with the court’s direction as set forth in the April 7 order, is

now entitled to summary judgment on the single claim that remained following the April 7

order.

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Valley First’s motion, construed by the

court as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED as to any and all remaining claims by

Plaintiff against Valley First Credit Union.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 209 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3