Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02953-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

– 1 – 16cv2953

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-02953-BAS-JLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

[ECF No. 22]

v.

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS 

BUREAU, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to file a 

surreply to Defendant California Business Bureau, Inc. (“CBB”)’s special motion to 

strike under California’s statute discouraging strategic lawsuits against public 

participation (“SLAPP”), Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant 

opposes. (ECF No. 23.) 

Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike Plaintiff’s California 

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”) claim based on 

California’s litigation privilege. (ECF No. 8.) In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that 

the litigation privilege should not apply to his Rosenthal Act claim because of two 

Case 3:16-cv-02953-BAS-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 16cv2953

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

cases: (1) People v. Persolve, LLC, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1267 (2013), and (2) Komarova 

v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 324 (2009). (ECF No. 16.) In 

its reply, Defendant responds to Plaintiff’s discussion of Persolve and Komarova.

(ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s discussion of these cases—and 

specifically Defendant’s claim that there should be a case-by-case analysis in this 

context—is a new argument that should not be considered by the Court without it

first granting Plaintiff leave to file a surreply. (ECF No. 22.) The Court disagrees.

Defendant’s reply does not impermissibly raise new arguments. Rather, it responds 

to Plaintiff’s claim that Persolve and Komarova show the litigation privilege does

not apply to his Rosenthal Act claim.

Further, Plaintiff argues granting him leave to file a surreply is appropriate 

because Defendant introduces new factual arguments in its reply. (ECF No. 22.) 

Having reviewed the evidence submitted in support of Defendant’s reply, the Court 

concludes granting Plaintiff leave to file a surreply on this basis is neither necessary 

nor warranted. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for leave to 

file a surreply (ECF No. 22).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02953-BAS-JLB Document 24 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2