Ford v. IQ Data International Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 20, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01791
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 NOAH FORD, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. C22-1791 TSZ 10 I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., MINUTE ORDER et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 14 (1) The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to seal docket number 107-2. This filing contains information that must be redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 5.2 and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5.2. 16 (2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to file, no later than March 5, 2024, a properly redacted version of docket number 107-2. The redacted filing must fully comply with the 17 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5.2. 18 (3) Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to provide written notice of the improper 19 filing to each account owner who had their account number disclosed in docket no. 107- 2. Proof that each account owner actually received notice that their account number was 20 improperly disclosed in docket number 107-2 must be filed with the Court no later than March 5, 2024. 21 (4) Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly failed to comply with this Court’s Local 22 Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Minute Order (docket no. 86). 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to show cause, no later than March 5, 2024, why he should not be sanctioned $250 per each instance of an improperly disclosed 2 account number in docket number 107-2, up to $5,250. 3 (5) Plaintiff’s request, docket no. 107, for permission to file a motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. In relation to Plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection 4 Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, this case is the not the proper forum for disputing the validity of the July 4, 2021, lease. Cf. Transamerica Fin. Servs., Inc. v. 5 Sykes, 171 F.3d 553, 555–56 (7th Cir. 1999). In relation to Plaintiff’s state law fraud claim, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege with particularity that Defendants knew that 6 the July 4, 2021, lease was an allegedly fraudulent document. See Compl. at ¶¶ 116–125 (docket no. 1). In relation to Plaintiff’s Washington Consumer Protection Act and 7 Washington Collection Agency Act claims, these claims are premised on the same facts and theories as the preceding claims, see id. at ¶ 131, and the request fails for the same 8 reasons applicable to each of the preceding claims. (6) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 9 record. 10 Dated this 20th day of February, 2024. 11 Ravi Subramanian 12 Clerk 13 s/Laurie Cuaresma Deputy Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22