Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01698/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01698-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

Section 1666(a) sets forth the obligations of a “creditor,” when the creditor receives

a notice from an “obligor” advising such creditor that a statement sent by the creditor to the

obligor contains a “billing error.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a). The instant action is based on

the allegation that defendant erroneously advised a credit reporting agency that plaintiff’s

account was delinquent; the complaint does not allege that defendant sent plaintiff a

statement containing a billing error.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOMEQ SERVICING INC.,

Defendant /

No. C-08-1698 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO FILE SUR-REPLY; VACATING MAY

23, 2008 HEARING

Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Complaint,” filed April 4, 2008, as

amended April 11, 2008. Plaintiff has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court, for the reasons set forth below, finds it appropriate to vacate the hearing

scheduled for May 23, 2008, and to afford plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply.

In the instant motion, defendant contends plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts

to state a claim under the federal statute identified in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”), specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a)(B)(ii). In his opposition, plaintiff does not argue

he can state a claim under § 1666(a)(B)(ii);1

 rather, plaintiff states the FAC does not “cite

Case 3:08-cv-01698-MMC Document 18 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 2
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

the exact provisions” of federal law on which plaintiff intends to rely, and requests leave to

amend to allege claims under other federal statutes, specifically, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1637(b),

1666(b)(6), and 1666a. (See Pl.’s Opp. at 5:2-4, 6:1-2.)

In its reply, defendant contends such amendment would be futile. Specifically,

defendant argues, said newly-identified statutes prescribe certain conduct by a creditor of

an “open end consumer credit plan”; according to defendant, the mortgage referenced in

the FAC is not an open end consumer credit plan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1602(i) (defining “open

end consumer credit plan” as a plan in which “the creditor reasonably contemplates

repeated transactions, which prescribes the terms of such transactions, and which provides

for a finance charge which may be computed from time to time on the outstanding unpaid

balance”).

Because plaintiff has not had the opportunity to respond to defendant’s most recent

argument, the Court will defer ruling on the motion to dismiss until plaintiff has had an

opportunity to so respond.

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby afforded leave to file, no later than June 3, 2008, a

sur-reply, not to exceed five pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, in which plaintiff may

respond to defendant’s argument that any amendment to allege the proposed new federal

claims would be futile.

As of June 3, 2008, the Court will take the matter under submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01698-MMC Document 18 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2