Free MOTION to Relate Case - District Court of California - California

Case 4:05-cv-04993-SBA

Document 28

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 1 of 4

1 Ronald Wilcox, State Bar # 2 2160 The Alameda, 1st Flr., Suite F 3 (408) 296-0400
San Jose, CA 95126 LAW OFFICE OF RONALD WILCOX

4 O. Randolph Bragg, Ill. Bar #06221983
HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington, Suite 900 6 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 372-8822

5

7 8 9 10

Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN CASTILLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case# 05-04993 MJJ (San Francisco) CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-12 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case# 06-02037 PVT (San Jose) CLASS ACTION vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

11 BRANDY HUNT, on behalf of herself 12 13 14
and all others similarly situated,

CHECK RECOVERY SYSTEMS, Defendant. 15 _______________________________ 16 BRIAN CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly 17 situated, Plaintiffs,

18 19

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES, 20 d.b.a. CHECK RECOVERY SYSTEMS,

21 22 23 24 25 26

Defendants. N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-12. Related Cases: (a) Definition of Related Cases. An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED, PURSUANT TO L.R. 3-12: Page 1

Case 4:05-cv-04993-SBA

Document 28

Filed 05/01/2006

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

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. ___________________________________ Brief Statement of Relationship Between the Actions: Both actions concern the legality of defendant's collection practices. Imperial Merchant Services, d.b.a. Check Recovery Systems, is a debt collector who collects on dishonored checks, adding unlawful amounts of interest and/or service charges charges that plaintiffs challenge, and engaging in other collection conduct that plaintiffs allege is unlawfully deceptive and unfair. Check Recovery Systems is a defendant in both Hunt v. Check Recovery Systems, Case# 0504993 MJJ (San Francisco), and Castillo v. Imperial Merchant Services, d.b.a. Check Recovery Systems, 06-02037 PVT (San Jose). Among other violations, the consumers in both actions allege Check Recovery Systems sends, or causes to be sent, form collection letters that attempt to collect an amount not authorized by contract or law. In Hunt v. Check Recovery Systems the Hon. James Jenkins has already denied a Motion to Dismiss and defendant's request to transfer the action to the bankruptcy court. Defendants have also filed an objection to claimed exemptions in Mr. Castillo's chapter 7 bankruptcy. Mr. Castillo has opposed such objections and a hearing is set for May 12, 2006 before the Hon. Marilyn Morgan. Defendants have also filed, but have not yet served, an adversary complaint in Mr. Castillo's chapter 7-bankruptcy and request the Bankruptcy Court determine the dischargeability of a $310.35 debt. Thus different procedural events affect the two different actions. However, plaintiff believes the matter should be related since both cases raise identical legal issues and rely on similar evidence, i.e. unlawful form collection letters. And, while the plaintiffs are different in the two matters, the plaintiff in Castillo is already a member of the putative class in the Hunt matter.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED, PURSUANT TO L.R. 3-12: Page 2

Case 4:05-cv-04993-SBA

Document 28

Filed 05/01/2006

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

Efficacy of Assignment to a Single Judge: It is possible there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. Thus, not relating the cases may unnecessarily complicate the matters further. Meet and Confer I called defendant's counsel Clark Garen on Monday morning, May 1, 2006, to meet and confer regarding this issue. Mr. Garen informed me he had already file a Notice of Related Cases and was not aware the local rules required him to meet and confer on the issue.

DATED: May 1, 2006

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD WILCOX /s/Ronald Wilcox Ronald Wilcox, for PLAINTIFF

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED, PURSUANT TO L.R. 3-12: Page 3

Case 4:05-cv-04993-SBA

Document 28

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 4 of 4

1 2
Certificate of Service I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I sent a copy of the foregoing via U.S. Mail

3 to the address below: 4 Clark Garen 5

Law Offices of Clark Garen POB 1790

6 Palm Springs, CA 92263 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED, PURSUANT TO L.R. 3-12: Page 4

Date: 5/1/06 /s/Ronald Wilcox Ronald Wilcox