Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02345/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02345-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Raymond Abels,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JBC Legal Group, P.C., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-02345 JW 

ORDER DECERTIFYING CLASS

ACTION; DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL

CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

Raymond Abels (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action against JBC Legal Group, P.C.,

Jack Boyajian, and Outsource Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged violations

of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. On November 11, 2004, the

Court issued a Scheduling Order for this case. (See Docket Item No. 16.) Pursuant to the

Scheduling Order, close of all discovery was set for August 8, 2005. (Id.) On May 16, 2005, the

Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. (See Docket Item No. 43.) On June

12, 2006, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (See

Docket Item No. 166.) On February 29, 2008, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this

case should not be dismissed because from June 12, 2006 until February 29, 2008, neither party took

any action in the case. To date Plaintiff still has not issued notice to the class. 

Instead of filing a certification as required by the Order to Show Cause, the parties filed a

stipulation, in which they stipulate to dismissal of Plaintiff’s individual claims if the Court

decertifies the class. Each side also agrees to bear its own fees and costs. Rule 23 provides district

courts with broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit that

Case 5:04-cv-02345-JW Document 179 Filed 03/21/08 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

certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d

849, 872 n.28 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Since notice to the class was never issued, Plaintiff never completed the class certification

requirements of Rule 23(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court decertifies the class. The Court also

dismisses lead Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation. This Order

does not prejudicially affect any claims of members of the class as to which notice was never sent. 

Tucker v. Intel Corp., 141 Fed. Appx. 524, 525 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the statute of limitations

would have been tolled as to any such claims during the pendency of this action. American Pipe &

Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974).

Dated: March 21, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02345-JW Document 179 Filed 03/21/08 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

June D. Coleman jcoleman@ecplslaw.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@ecplslaw.com

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

Dated: March 21, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02345-JW Document 179 Filed 03/21/08 Page 3 of 3