Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

JASON E. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-1767 SI

ORDER RE: FURTHER BRIEFING

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are scheduled for a hearing on June 8, 2007. Pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral

argument, and VACATES the hearing.

The Court directs the parties to submit supplemental briefs regarding several issues raised by

the motion filed by defendant Unifund CCR Partners. Defendant asserts that this Court should apply

California’s compulsory counterclaim statute to bar plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Act. The Court directs further briefing on

the question of whether California’s compulsory counterclaim statute applies in a non-diversity action.

The Ninth Circuit cases cited by defendant are all diversity actions. See, e.g., Springs v. First Nat’l

Bank of Cut Bank, 835 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1988); Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 827 F.2d 1246

(9th Cir. 1987); Cheiker v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 820 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1987). Relatedly, the

parties are directed to address whether, in the event California’s compulsory counterclaim statute does

not directly apply in this action, the Court should nevertheless apply that statute as a matter of comity.

See Chapman v. Aetna Finance Co., 615 F.2d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 1980) (cited in Pochiro, 827 F.32d at

1249).

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 27 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff is additionally directed to address whether any part of plaintiff’s claims arise out of facts

that are separate and distinct from those bearing on the enforceability of the debt itself. 

The parties shall file their supplemental briefs of no longer than 5 pages by noon on June 8,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 27 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2