Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01276/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CitiBank (South Dakota), N.A.
Defendant
Mary Ann Pacheco
Plaintiff
Sears/CBSD
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY ANN PACHECO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., as

successor to SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,

dba SEARS/CBSD,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01276 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 20, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court finds that to

the extent Plaintiff alleges a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 

Case 3:07-cv-01276-JSW Document 14 Filed 04/18/07 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

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b-1692j, such claim should be dismissed because Defendant is not a debt

collector under the FDCPA. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim under the California

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq.

should be dismissed because it is preempted by the preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the

dismissal should be with or without prejudice.

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) If given leave to amend, what claims if any would Plaintiff seek to bring and what facts

would she allege in support of such claims.

(2) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01276-JSW Document 14 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2