Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01828-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Asset Acceptance
Defendant
Joseph E. Gerber
Plaintiff
MBNA America Bank
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH E. GERBER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MBNA AMERICA BANK, a Delaware

corporation, and ASSET ACCEPTANCE,

LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-1828 RRB PAN PS

ORDER 

-o0oPlaintiff paid the filing fee and filed his complaint

September 12, 2005, alleging that defendants’ billing practices

violated state and federal laws including the Truth in Lending

and Fair Credit Billing Acts (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692a et seq.), the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681a et seq.), and the

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civil Code § 1750

Case 2:05-cv-01828-RRB -PAN Document 20 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1 None of the parties’ proposed orders were submitted in word

processing format for the court’s signature, as required by E. D. Cal. L. R.

5-137(b).

2

et seq.). 

Process was personally delivered to each defendant

September 15, 2005, requiring defendants answer by October 5,

2005. Asset and MBNA filed separate stipulations with plaintiff

extending their deadlines to November 3 and November 4, 2005,

respectively. E. D. Cal. L. R. 6-144(a).

On November 4, MBNA moved to stay this action and compel

arbitration, scheduling the matter for hearing before the

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, to whom this case was originally

assigned. The same day, Judge Karlton’s clerk informed MBNA

their motion must be heard by the assigned magistrate judge by

force of E. D. Cal. L. R. 72-302(c)(21). On November 7, MBNA

requested Judge Karlton retain and hear MBNA’s motion based on

plaintiff’s written statement he intended to retain counsel

before the hearing. Judge Karlton did not rule on MBNA’s request

and this case was reassigned to the Honorable Ralph R. Beistline

on November 22. 

Meanwhile, on November 15, 2005, all parties filed a

stipulation and proposed order1 seeking to extend until December

2 service and filing of defendants’ answers, asserting good cause

“because all of the parties have reached a tentative settlement

agreement, and are moving toward finalizing that agreement.” 

December 6, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed

Case 2:05-cv-01828-RRB -PAN Document 20 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

order extending the deadlines until January 2, 2006, stating that

“[t]he monetary component of the settlement agreement has been

agreed upon with certainty by all parties,” and “[t]he parties

are circulating a draft of a written settlement agreement among

themselves, and efforts are being made among the parties to

produce and execute a final draft of that document.” On January

6, the parties again stipulated to extend the deadlines until

January 16, 2006, on the ground that “[t]he parties are near

conclusion of settlement.”

This case remains subject to E. D. Cal. L. R. 72-

302(c)(21), and is assigned to this magistrate judge for all

pretrial matters.

All of the foregoing requests for extension of time are

approved nunc pro tunc.

So ordered.

Dated: January 11, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01828-RRB -PAN Document 20 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3