Barca v. 90 Day Credit Experts, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONI BARCA, No. 2:23-cv-1028 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 90 DAY CREDIT EXPERTS, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 31, 2023, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint and paying the 18 applicable filing fee.1 (ECF No. 1.) The complaint alleges that the court has subject matter 19 jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et 20 seq., and that venue is proper because the events at issue occurred within the Eastern District of 21 California. (Id. at 2.) 22 On November 16, 2023, the court issued an order setting a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 23 Conference in this matter for December 22, 2023. (ECF No. 13.) On December 8, 2023, the 24 parties filed a Joint Status Report. (ECF. No. 17.) Although there is nothing from the face of the 25 complaint to call jurisdiction or venue into question in the parties’ Joint Status Report defendant 26 “denies that Jurisdiction and Venue are proper and believe (sic) that the discovery process will 27 1 Each of the parties in the above-captioned case consented to proceed before a United States 28 Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 assist in an analysis of these issues.” (Id. at 2.) However, defendant also states that “Defendant 2 does not anticipate filing a dispositive motion[.]” (Id.) 3 The court cannot proceed with scheduling this action in light of defendant’s 4 representations. Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case 5 before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 6 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at 7 any time during the proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 8 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua 9 sponte whether [it] has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 10 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional 11 requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without 12 jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 13 858 F.2d at 1380. 14 The Status Conference will, therefore, be continued. The parties will be ordered to file a 15 supplemental Joint Statement. Therein, defendant shall clarify as to why defendant believes 16 jurisdiction and/or venue may be improper. As a result, defendant’s motion to allow a special 17 appearance at the Status Conference will be denied.2 (ECF No. 19.) 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for December 22, 2023, is continued 20 Friday February 2, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in person at the United States District Court, 501 I 21 Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned. 22 2. On or before January 19, 2024, the parties shall file an updated joint status report. 23 Therein, defendant shall clarify as to why defendant believes jurisdiction and/or venue may be 24 improper. The supplemental joint status report shall also address all of the following matters: 25 //// 26 27 2 On December 7, 2023, defendant filed a notice of association of attorney. (ECF No. 16.) On December 8, 2023, defendant filed a motion to strike that notice explaining it was erroneously 28 filed. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant’s motion will be granted. 1 a. Progress of service of process; 2 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 3 c. Possible amendment of the pleadings; 4 d. Jurisdiction and venue; 5 e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof; 6 f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 7 g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off 8 dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial; 9 h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules 10 due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action; 11 i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy; 12 j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned 13 to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to 14 have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge; and 15 k. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action. 16 17 4. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the 18 status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 19 and 183. 20 5. Defendant’s December 13, 2023 motion to strike (ECF No. 18) is granted. 21 6. Defendant’s December 13, 2023 motion to allow special appearance (ECF No. 19) is 22 denied. 23 DATED: December 20, 2023 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 DLB:6 27 DLB1\orders.consent\barca1028.cont.ossc 28