Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01355/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01355-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derek Russell
Plaintiff
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SONOMA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01355-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff Derek Russell filed a lawsuit alleging that the Superior Court 

of California, County of Sonoma violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692, and the Rosenthal Act, in connection with monies allegedly owed from two traffic citations. 

(See Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 15-17; Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 3.) 1

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff had 120 days to 

complete service of the complaint and summons on Defendant, such that July 22, 2015 was the 

last day to complete service or to file a Motion for Administrative Relief from the deadline 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11. The Case Management Conference originally scheduled for 

June 23, 2015 was continued to September 22, 2015, because Defendant had not been served 7 

days prior to the original CMC date. (Dkt. No. 6.)

On July 23, 2015, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why this case should not 

be dismissed for failure to comply with the deadline to complete service on Defendant or to file a 

 

1 Mr. Russell impermissibly filed the instant complaint with a notice of removal, which was 

opened under a different case number (Case No. 15-cv-1604). The notice of removal (Dkt. No. 3), 

however, provides the factual bases for the complaint. The new case was terminated for failure to 

pay the filing fee. It later came to the court’s attention that Mr. Russell paid the filing fee but filed 

the same notice of removal again, causing Case No. 15-cv-01848 to be opened. That case was 

ultimately remanded to state court.

Case 3:15-cv-01355-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Motion for Administrative Relief. (Dkt. No. 7) Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response to 

this order by August 17, 2015, and was advised that a failure to file a response may result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to 

the order to show cause nor is there any indication that he has served the defendant.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

As to the merits of Plaintiff’s case, the Ninth Circuit has stated that the FDCPA concerns 

only “those obligations to pay arising from consensual transactions, where parties negotiate or 

contract for consumer-related goods or services.” Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Bass v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322, 1326 (7th 

Cir. 1997)). Traffic citations do not arise from consensual transactions for good or services. 

Rather, they arise from an individual allegedly violating the law. Thus, Plaintiff’s traffic tickets 

are not “debts” under the federal or state acts. See Herrera v. AllianceOne Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 

No. 14CV1844 BTM WVG, 2015 WL 3796123, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2015)(“Traffic fines do 

not result from consensual consumer transactions, and are therefore not ‘debts’ within the meaning 

of the Acts.”) (citing Gulley v. Markoff & Krasny, 664 F.3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) (municipal 

fines not debts under FDCPA). 

Accordingly, as Plaintiff has not consented to the undersigned, the Court reassigns this 

case to a district judge and recommends that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for 

failure to prosecute.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-01355-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the District Judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-

5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: September 17, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01355-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3