Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05266-13/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN SOLBERG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VICTIM SERVICES, INC. D/B/A 

CORRECTIVESOLUTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05266-VC 

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO 

DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 244, 246, 251

The motion to deny class certification is stricken as redundant and improperly filed in 

light of the motion for class certification that is currently being briefed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(f).

Additionally, defense counsel are ordered to show cause why they should not be 

sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and/or Federal Rule of Procedure 11 for filing an improper 

motion. Defense counsel did not seek leave of the Court before filing this motion; nor have

defense counsel explained why a separate, redundant series of briefs is needed for this motion 

when there is a pending motion for class certification, and when the defendants are making the 

same kinds of arguments in both motions (and even referencing the same exhibits). In contrast 

to the motion to deny class certification, the motion for class certification was scheduled more 

than six months ago, and the briefing schedule was established in advance. The motion to deny 

class certification therefore appears to be frivolous and is needlessly increasing the cost of 

litigation. See Huy Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-cv-05239, 2017 WL 4224930, at 

*1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017) (distinguishing cross-motions for summary judgment and 

explaining why simultaneous motions for class certification and to deny class certification are 

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 252 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 2
2

unnecessary). By no measure is this a "preemptive" motion to deny class certification either, as 

in Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, 

defense counsel is ordered to file its response to this order to show cause by 9:00 am on 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018. The Court will decide the order to show cause on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05266-VC Document 252 Filed 07/10/18 Page 2 of 2