Case 2:09-cv-00782-PMP-RJJ Document 16

Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THOMAS CHRISTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar # 2326 CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, L.L.C. 1000 S. Valley View Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorney for Plaintiff, IT MACHINES, L.L.C., d/b/a SINGLEPOINT NETWORKS, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated Class Members

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

IT MACHINES, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Class Members

) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ) MASTERFILE CORPORATION, a ) corporation; NCS RECOVERY ) CORPORATION, a full service collection ) agency; PHUSION 25; and DOES 1 ) through 100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

CASE NO. 2:09-cv-782-PMP-RJJ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR REMAND JURY DEMANDED

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, IT MACHINES, LLC ("Plaintiff"), by and through their attorney THOMAS CHRISTENSEN, ESQ, hereby respond to Defendant Masterfile Corporation's ("Masterfile") Opposition to Plaintiff IT Machine's Motion for Remand to Eighth

24 25 26 27 28

Judicial District Court of Clark County Nevada Case A586796 ("Opposition").

Case 2:09-cv-00782-PMP-RJJ Document 16

Filed 06/29/09 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

1.

Masterfile claims that removal was proper because Plaintiff's "complaint expressly

alleges claims based upon a federal statue", ie. 15 USC 1692 ("FDCPA"). Opposition II (B): 25-26. Masterfile also accuses Plaintiff of attempting to amend the Complaint in an effort

4 5 6 7 8 9

to "avoid federal jurisdiction by abandoning federal claims after removal." Opposition II (C): 25-26. Neither of these claims are valid because Plaintiff's complaint was never based on the FDCPA. 2. Defendant lists the following reasons as a basis for proper removal to the District Court:

1) the complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law; and 2) the complaint contains federal
10 11 12 13 14

claims for alleged violations of the FDCPA. 3. The claims that Defendant refers to are not the laws under which Plaintiff is prosecuting

the case, they are simply proof that the practices of the Defendant are contrary to the liberties of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated class members.

15 16 17 18 19 20

4.

Plaintiff is not "abandoning federal claims." Plaintiff's prosecution rests and always

rested on the claims of State Common Law. The prohibited practices under state common law were later codified into 15 USC 1692 that statute did not do away with the common law principles. 5. In the Opposition Defendant sites Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Ass'n of Securities

21 22 23 24 25 26

Dealers, Inc., supra, 159 F.3d 1213. Opposition II (C): 26-27. Defendant uses this case to support the claim that Plaintiff can not amend the original "complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which removal was based." Plaintiff is not attempting to amend the complaint. The case cited refers to an incident where a plaintiff actually filed an amended complaint. No such amended complaint was filed in this case and therefore the citation is not applicable. In

27 28

Case 2:09-cv-00782-PMP-RJJ Document 16

Filed 06/29/09 Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

addition, the cited case is based on a federal law that has a provision of exclusive federal jurisdiction. No such provision exists in regards to the claims of Plaintiff's complaint. 6. Defendant misrepresents Plaintiffs claims in Defendant's Opposition. Defendant quotes

4 5 6 7 8 9

a section of Plaintiff's complaint that is clearly a mistake. Plaintiff was deliberate to not include 15 USC 1692 in their complaint but to merely quote it as reference that Defendant's business practices are fraudulent. Defendant makes reference to a section of Plaintiff's complaint where in an "aforementioned provision of the U.S.C" is made reference to, but if this court will review Plaintiff's complaint, there is no aforementioned provision of the U.S.C. Nowhere in Plaintiff's

10 11 12 13 14

complaint is a title or provision of the USC mentioned as a basis for the relief sought. 7. For these reasons Plaintiff re-affirms that the claims and laws upon which this case rests

are those of the State and no federal question nor jurisdiction can be appealed to as proof of proper removal to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

15 16 17

DATED this 29 day of June, 2009.

CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICES, LLC

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

By:_/ss/_Thomas Christensen_______ THOMAS CHRISTENSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar # 2326 1000 S. Valley View Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Attorneys for Plaintiff, IT MACHINES, L.L.C. and all similarly situated class members