Griffith v. Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 2, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-00017
StatusUnknown

This text of Griffith v. Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc. (Griffith v. Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Griffith v. Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 JASON GRIFFITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

13 v. Discovery Deadlines: - Rule 26 Disclosures: April 30, 2024 14 HARLEY-DAVIDSON FINANCIAL - Amended Pleadings: June 4, 2024 SERVICES, INC., - Expert Disclosures: November 25, 2024 15 - Rebuttal Disclosures: December 6, 2024 Defendant. - Fact Discovery Cut-Off: October 25, 2024 16 - Expert Discovery Cut-Off: December 20, 2024 - Mid-Discovery Status Conference: August 23, 17 2024, at 9:30 a.m., in Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 18 93301

19 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: - Filing: December 31, 2024 20 - Hearing: February 4, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., Bakersfield Federal Courthouse 21 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: 22 - Filing: February 18, 2025 - Hearing: April 14, 2025 23 1:30 p.m., in Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse, Fresno, Courtroom 6, 7th floor 24 Pre-Trial Conference: August 11, 2025, at 1:30 25 p.m., in Fresno Federal Courthouse

26 Trial: October 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff 27

28 /// 1 Plaintiff Jason Griffith initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in state court on 2 November 22, 2023. (Doc. 1). Defendant Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc. (“Harley- 3 Davidson”) removed the action to this Court on January 3, 2024. Id. Plaintiff alleges that on or 4 around December 20, 2022, his identity was stolen by a family friend. That person used Plaintiff’s 5 identity and forged his signature to finance and purchase a vehicle through a loan issued by 6 Harley-Davidson. Plaintiff did not discover that his identity had been stolen until around January 7 20, 2023, when Harley-Davidson contacted him about an allegedly late payment. Plaintiff 8 allegedly informed Harley-Davidson that he never purchased the vehicle and suspected that he was 9 a victim of identity theft. Plaintiff alleges that despite informing Harley-Davidson that his identity 10 had been stolen, Harley-Davidson continued to send him debt collection notices and reported 11 adverse information in his credit report. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of California’s 12 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.93; the 13 Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.1, et seq., and the 14 federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.1 15 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before 16 Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on April 1, 2024. Matthew Snyder appeared on behalf of 17 Plaintiff and Alexandra Hider appeared on behalf of Harley-Davidson. 18 I. Magistrate Judge Consent: 19 Currently the parties do not jointly consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 20 Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing 21 Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 22 Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial date set before a 23 District Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case 24 set on the same date until a courtroom becomes available. The trial date will not be reset. 25

26 1 On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Trans Union LLC 27 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Doc. 16). On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement as to Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”). (Doc. 26). Equifax 28 was not a signatory to the parties’ joint scheduling report and did not appear at the scheduling conference in light of the settlement, and counsel for Harley-Davidson did not object to proceeding 1 The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 2 of the District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize criminal 3 and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A Magistrate Judge may conduct trials, 4 including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, 5 and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the 6 United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 7 Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 8 conduct all further proceedings, including trial, and to file a consent/decline form (provided by the 9 Court at the inception of this case) indicating whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the 10 Magistrate Judge. 11 II. Pleading Amendment 12 Any motions to amend the pleadings, including to substitute “Doe” defendants, must be filed by 13 June 4, 2024. Filing a motion and/or stipulation requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not 14 reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if 15 necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth 17 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that 18 such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) 19 proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 20 III. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date 21 The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by no later 22 than April 30, 2024. 23 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 24 October 25, 2024, and all discovery pertaining to experts on or before December 20, 2024. 25 26 27 28 1 The parties are directed to disclose all expert witnesses2, in writing, on or before November 25, 2 2024, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before December 6, 2024. The written designation of 3 retained and non-retained experts shall be made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and 4 (C) and shall include all information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance 5 with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through such 6 experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order. 7 The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and (5) shall apply to all discovery relating to experts 8 and their opinions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Griffith v. Harley-Davidson Financial Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-harley-davidson-financial-services-inc-caed-2024.