Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00330-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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 The court notes that plaintiffs failed to follow the civil local rule requirement that

leave of court be obtained prior to noticing a motion for reconsideration. Civil L.R. 7-9(a).

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT

E-FILED on 2/12/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL ARIKAT AND PASIMA

ARIKAT, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.; LOWE'S HIW,

INC.; MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES,

INC.; MBNA MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.;

MIDCOAST CREDIT CORP.; DISCOVER

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; HOME

DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; SEARS, ROEBUCK

AND CO.; WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL

CALIFORNIA, INC.; FAIR ISAAC

CORPORATION; TRANS UNION LLC;

EQUIFAX INC.; EXPERIAN SERVICES

CORP.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00330 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 156]

On January 15, 2007 plaintiffs noticed a "motion for reconsideration of order dismissing

case."1

 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of a January 5, 2007 order; however, the court did not issue

any order on January 5, 2007. The court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'

remaining claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on January 5, 2007. No appearance was made by

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 163 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 2

plaintiffs at the hearing. On January 17, 2007 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss

plaintiffs' remaining claims for, inter alia, plaintiffs' failure to file a timely amended complaint after

previously missing court deadlines on more than one occasion, non-compliance with court orders,

and non-responsiveness to defendants' attempts to contact them. See Order of January 17, 2007

Granting Motion to Dismiss ("January 17, 2007 Order") [Dkt. 159]. The court assumes that

plaintiffs seeks reconsideration of the January 17, 2007 Order as no order issued on January 5, 2007.

Plaintiffs first seek reconsideration on the basis that the court's January 3, 2007 Order

Denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Hearing Date and for Extension of Time to File an

Amended Complaint ("January 3, 2007 Order") "said that the hearing of Jan. 5, which it erroneously

listed as 'January 4,' was vacated because the court didn't need oral argument. The court obviously

made an error in its Jan[.] 3 order by canceling the Jan[.] 5 hearing as 'January 4 hearing,' but it

obviously meant January 5." Pls.' Mot. at 1:25-28. This argument provides no basis for

reconsideration. The court dismissed the action based on plaintiffs' failure to file a timely amended

complaint after previously missing court deadlines, failure to comply with court orders, and nonresponsiveness to defendants. Further, plaintiffs' January 3, 2007 Ex Parte Motion to Continue

Hearing Date and for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint was noticed for a separate

hearing on Thursday, January 4, 2007. See Dkt. 154. In the January 3, 2007 Order, the court noted

that "[p]laintiffs seek a hearing on their ex parte motion on January 4, 2007 at 9:00 a.m" and,

because the court found the ex parte motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, vacated

the January 4, 2007 hearing date on the motion. Jan. 3, 2007 Order at 2:9-10; 19-21. 

Plaintiffs argue that the court erroneously assumed all defendants joined in the motion to

dismiss. Plaintiffs contend that their first claim for credit libel remains against Macy's Department

Stores, Equifax, Inc., Experian Services Corp., and Fair Isaac Corporation because none of these

defendants joined in the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' argument is contrary to this court's prior order

dismissing all claims against Fair Isaac Corporation with prejudice. In addition, defendants Macy's

Department Stores, Equifax, Inc., and Experian Services Corp. all joined in the motion to dismiss, as

noted in the court's January 17, 2007 Order. Plaintiffs also argue that the case should not be

dismissed as to JP Morgan Chase & Co.; MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc.; Midcoast Credit Corp.;

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 163 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 3

and Wells Fargo Financial California, Inc. as only Wells Fargo Financial California, Inc. has

appeared in the action and no motions to dismiss were filed by these defendants. However, pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a district court has the authority to dismiss an entire action whether or not a

motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) has been filed by each named defendant. See Link v.

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (holding that a district court may dismiss an action

for failure to prosecute or failure to obey court orders even absent a motion by defendants). The

court concluded dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41(b) was appropriate for the reasons noted

above and discussed in the January 17, 2007 Order. Plaintiffs do not raise any "new material facts

or a change of law occurring after the time of the January 17, 2007 Order or any "material facts or

dispositive legal arguments" not considered by the court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Therefore, the court

finds that plaintiffs have not stated any valid grounds for reconsideration. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs' noticed motion date of Friday, March 30, 2007, 9:00 a.m., for a hearing on a

motion for reconsideration is hereby VACATED.

DATED: 2/12/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 163 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-06-00330 RMW

SPT 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Stanley Hilton FROG727@AOL.COM 

Counsel for Defendants:

Deborah Barack dbarack@stroock.com

Albert Finch tfinch@eakdl.com

Martin L. Fineman edithshertz@dwt.com

Brian C. Frontino bfrontino@stroock.com

Deanna L. Johnston dljohnston@jonesday.com

James R. McGuire jmcguire@mofo.com

Stacy Marie Monahan smonahan@jonesday.com

Andrew W. Moritz Amoritz@Stroock.com

Stephen Michael Rummage steverummage@dwt.com

William L. Stern wstern@mofo.com

Darya V. Swingle daryaswingle@dwt.com

Michele Kathleen Trausch mtrausch@hansonbridgett.com 

Julia H. Veit jveit@hansonbridgett.com 

Chris Jacob Young cyoung@mofo.com

Felicia Yu fyu@reedsmith.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2/12/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00330-RMW Document 163 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4