Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-00210
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Denicolo v. Viking Client Services — Judge Rogers denied Viking’s request for permission to seek reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling.
Viking Client Services, LLC’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied; the order addressed only that request and terminated Docket No. 142.
What happened
In Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Viking asked the court for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order denying its motion for summary judgment. The dispute concerned whether a rental-car damage debt was primarily a business or personal debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Viking argued that the court had failed to consider that the plaintiff’s employer reimbursed the rental cost. The court found that Viking had not presented that evidence with its summary-judgment motion and had not shown that the reimbursement would determine whether the debt was personal or commercial.
Judge Rogers denied Viking’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and terminated the docket entry for that motion.
The detailed version
- Denicolo v. Viking Client Services, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-00210
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 27, 2020
Background
Viking Client Services, LLC sought permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s September 30, 2020 order denying Viking’s motion for summary judgment. The underlying issue involved whether an alleged debt for damage to a rental car was incurred primarily for business purposes under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
Viking’s Argument
Viking argued that reconsideration was warranted because the court had not considered the fact that the plaintiff received reimbursement from his employer for the cost of renting the vehicle. Viking contended that this reimbursement would establish that the debt was a business debt. Viking also argued that the earlier summary-judgment ruling relied on facts that the parties had not cited in their briefing, including that the plaintiff booked the rental himself and did not use a company credit card.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available in circumstances such as newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, an intervening change in controlling law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.
The court found that Viking had not offered evidence of employer reimbursement in its summary-judgment motion, separate statement of material facts, or supporting briefing. The deposition pages Viking sought to submit for the first time were evidence in its possession that it could have presented earlier. Because the evidence had not been presented before the summary-judgment ruling, Viking did not show that the court had failed to consider material facts or arguments that had actually been presented to it.
The court also concluded that, even if it considered the previously omitted evidence, Viking had not cited authority showing that employer reimbursement would be dispositive. Under the cited precedent, courts examine the transaction as a whole and focus particularly on the purpose for which credit was extended; neither the creditor’s motivations nor the way the obligation is documented is dispositive. The court therefore found that Viking had not shown the omitted evidence would change the summary-judgment result.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers denied Viking’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order states that Docket No. 142 was terminated.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.