Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-00525-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1 Oral argument is requested by at least one of the parties on

each of these motions. Finding oral argument unnecessary, the Court

shall deny such requests.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christine Baker, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 03-525-PCT RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Fair Isaac and Company, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

I. Introduction

On February 14, 2006, Defendant Verizon Wireless ("Verizon")

filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Christine

Baker's ("Baker") claims against it. Mot. (doc. 237). 

Thereafter, on March 15, 2006, Baker filed a motion requesting

leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Mot. for Leave (doc.

248). These motions were both fully briefed on April 5, 2006. P.

Reply (doc. 266).1 This Court, having carefully considered all the

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 8
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 -

arguments presented by the parties, now rules. 

II. Background Facts

On March 19, 2003, Baker brought various claims against

twenty-seven defendants, including Verizon. Complt. (doc. 1).

When Baker initially filed her Complaint, it was unclear exactly

what claims she was asserting against Verizon. D. Resp. (doc. 257)

at 2. Accordingly, Verizon served Baker with Interrogatories in

which it asked Baker to list each cause of action she was asserting

against Verizon. Id. at 2-3. In response, Baker stated that

"Verizon committed fraud and attempted to extort monies NOT

owed[.]" Exbt. A (doc. 257) at 1. Based on this response, Verizon

filed a motion for summary judgment on the "fraud" and "extortion"

claims. D. Resp. (doc. 257) at 3. Verizon's motion primarily

asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

Baker's fraud and "extortion" claims; and, even if the Court had

jurisdiction, Verizon would nevertheless be entitled to judgment as

a matter of law. Mot. (doc. 237). 

About a month after Verizon filed its motion for summary

judgment, Baker filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended

complaint. Mot. for Leave (doc. 248). Baker seeks to amend her

Complaint by removing the parties that have already been dismissed

from this lawsuit, and adding new claims against Defendants

Experian and ConsumerInfo.com. Id. at 1-2. In addition, Baker

seeks to add claims against Verizon for negligence and gross

negligence, and claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

("FDCPA"). Id. at 2, 10. 

. . .

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 8
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 -

III. Discussion

A. Baker's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Rule 15 states that leave shall be freely given to amend a

complaint when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. A plaintiff

should be granted the freedom to amend their complaint unless the

opposing party can show prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay. 

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, if the

plaintiff's amendments would be futile, the court may, in its

discretion, deny the Motion to Amend. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d

805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, Verizon asserts that Baker's motion to amend should be

denied. D. Resp. (doc. 257). At the outset, Verizon argues that

Baker's proposed amendments against it are futile. Id. at 4-9. 

First, Verizon asserts that it cannot be held liable under the

FDCPA because (1) it is not a "debt collector" as defined by the

statute; and (2) the relevant letters used as the basis for Baker's

claim were sent by third-parties. Id. at 4-5. Second, Verizon

argues that Baker lacks standing to assert claims under the FDCPA,

because the relevant letters used as the basis for her claim were

not addressed to her; thus, she is not a "consumer" as defined by

the statute. Id. at 5-6. Third, Verizon maintains that Baker's

claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 6. 

Fourth, Verizon argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over

Baker's "negligence" claims, because Baker is seeking only $25,000

in damages. D. Resp. (doc. 257) at 6-7. Fifth, Verizon contends

that Baker's "negligence" claims fail to state a claim. Id. at 7-

9. 

In addition, Verizon argues that Baker's motion for leave to

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 8
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

- 4 -

amend her complaint should be denied, because her undue delay

prejudices Verizon and the motion is made in bad faith. Id. at 9-

12. Lastly, Verizon asserts that the Court should deny Baker's

motion, because it fails to comply with Local Rule 15(C). Id. at

12-13.

Baker fails to respond to any of Verizon's arguments, except

for the allegations that her motion was made in bad faith and

failed to comply with Local Rule 15(C). P. Reply (doc. 266). In

explanation of her failure to respond to Verizon's other arguments,

Baker states,

...[m]ost of Verizon's 14 page filing would be

more appropriate in a motion to dismiss and

Plaintiff will not argue her claims in this Reply.

Verizon is free to file a motion to dismiss or a

motion for summary judgment after the First

Amended Complaint has been filed, giving Plaintiff

sufficient time to respond appropriately.

P. Reply (doc. 266) at 3. The Court finds Baker's postponement of

her response to Verizon's arguments regarding futility and undue

delay to be detrimental to her motion. 

Baker's motion to amend is filed three years after she filed

her original Complaint. Her request comes after Verizon filed its

motion for summary judgment and after discovery began between the

parties. However, Baker's motion and proposed First Amended

Complaint contain no newly discovered information or argument that

explains such a delay. The Ninth Circuit has noted that "a

district court does not 'abuse its discretion in denying a motion

to amend a complaint...when the movant presented no new facts but

only 'new theories' and 'provided no satisfactory explanation for

his failure to fully develop his contentions originally.'" Nunes,

375 F.3d at 808. 

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 -

Moreover, in the absence of any counter argument by Baker, the

Court finds Verizon's contentions concerning the futility of

Baker's proposed additional claims to be convincing. "Futility

alone can justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend." Id.

Thus, the Court shall deny Baker's motion to amend in regard to her

additional proposed claims against Verizon.

B. Verizon's Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Standard of Review

To grant summary judgment, the court must determine that the

record before it contains "no genuine issue as to any material

fact" and, thus, "that the moving party is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining whether to

grant summary judgment, the court will view the facts and

inferences from these facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the

parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for

summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue

of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 247-48 (1986). A material fact is any factual dispute that

might affect the outcome of the case under the governing

substantive law. Id. at 248. A factual dispute is genuine if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the dispute

in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. 

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rest

upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings or papers, but

instead must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 8
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

- 6 -

for trial. See id. at 250. Finally, if the nonmoving party's

evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, a

court may grant summary judgment. See, e.g., California

Architectural Build. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d

1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987).

2. Analysis

Verizon argues that summary judgment should be granted in its

favor on all of Baker's claims against Verison. Mot. (doc. 237) at

1-2. First, Verizon asserts that, because Baker failed to timely

respond to its requests for admission, she automatically admits

numerous statements that indicate that she was not wronged or

damaged by Verizon. Id. at 2-5. Second, Verizon asserts that,

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over Baker's claims. Id. at 5. Specifically, Verizon

notes that Baker admitted in her answers to its interrogatories

that she is only seeking to recover compensatory damages in the

amount of $25,000; thus, failing to reach the requisite amount of

over $75,000. Id. at 5-6. Additionally, Verizon notes that Baker

has failed to raise any claims that would give rise to federal

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. at 6-7. Third,

Verizon asserts that Baker has failed to state a valid fraud claim,

as she has not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of

such a claim. Mot. (doc. 237) 7-9. Fourth, Verizon contends that

Baker's "extortion" claim is not a cognizable claim, as Baker fails

to cite any federal or state authority as a source for her claim. 

Id. at 9. Verizon notes that Arizona does not recognize a common

law civil cause of action for extortion, nor does a statute exist. 

Id. at 10. Fifth, Verizon asserts that the damages for "mental

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 -

anguish" and "loss of income" that Baker seeks are not recoverable

in fraud. Id. at 10-11. Finally, Verizon requests an award of

reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending this

claim. Id. at 12.

In her response, Baker fails to respond to any of Verizon's

arguments, except for the issues regarding her admissions and

Verizon's request for fees. P. Resp. (doc. 251). Although Baker

admits that her responses to Verizon's request for admissions were

filed one day after the deadline, she requests that the Court allow

her to withdraw the admissions. Id. at 1, 2-3. In any event,

Baker makes no arguments in opposition to Verizon's assertions

concerning the viability of Baker's fraud and "extortion" claims,

and the Court's jurisdiction over them. Instead, Baker argues that

the Court retains jurisdiction over the "FDCPA claims" that she

added in her proposed First Amended Complaint. Id. at 6-7. 

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rest

upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings or papers, but

instead must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue

for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party's

evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, a

court may grant summary judgment. See, e.g., California

Architectural Build. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d

1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the Court shall grant Verizon's

motion for summary judgment on Baker's fraud and "extortion"

claims. However, the Court shall deny the motion in regard to

Verizon's request for attorney's fees, as the request was not

properly filed in accordance with Local Rule 54.2. 

Therefore,

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 -

IT IS ORDERED that Baker's motion requesting leave to file a

First Amended Complaint (doc. 248) is DENIED in regard to her

additional proposed claims against Verizon. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Verizon's motion for summary

judgment (doc. 237) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is

denied as to Verizon's request for attorney's fees but granted in

all other respects. 

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record and Plaintiff, pro se

Case 3:03-cv-00525-RCB Document 286 Filed 05/17/06 Page 8 of 8