Kalinina v. Capital One Bank et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-	MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
JANNA KALININA,
Debtor.
JANNA KALININA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAPITAL ONE BANK; J.P. MORGAN CHASE;
WASHINGTON MUTUAL; and APPLIED CARD
BANK,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 03-32638 TEC 7
Chapter 7
Adv. Proc. No. 08-3004 TC
MEMORANDUM RE CAPITAL ONE BANK’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
A hearing on Capital One Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is set for April 25, 2008. 	Upon careful review of the
papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, the court has
determined that resolution of the motion turns solely on a question
of law and that oral argument would not be helpful. 	Upon due
consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, the court hereby
determines that the complaint should be dismissed.
Signed and Filed: April 23, 2008
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
April 24, 2008
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 08-03004 Doc# 18 Filed: 04/23/08 Entered: 04/24/08 12:54:06 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-	MEMORANDUM
The complaint asserts a single claim against Defendants for
their alleged willful and intentional violation of the discharge
injunction, for which Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 	11 U.S.C.
§ 524. 	There being no private cause of action for alleged
violations of section 524, the complaint should be dismissed.
Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff’s sole remedy is a civil contempt motion to the extent
Plaintiff can allege a violation of section 524.
The existing complaint also does not allege facts sufficient
to support a motion for civil contempt, because it does not allege
that Capital One’s false credit reporting was made with the intent
to cause Plaintiff to pay the discharged debt. 	Absent such an
allegation, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish
violation of the discharge injunction. 	E.g., Irby v. Fashion Bug
(In re Irby), 337 B.R. 293 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005); In re Mogg,
2007 WL 2608501 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2007).
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
Case: 08-03004 Doc# 18 Filed: 04/23/08 Entered: 04/24/08 12:54:06 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-	MEMORANDUM
Court Service List
Irving L. Berg, Esq.
Berg Law Group
145 Town Center PMB 493
Corte Madera, CA 94925
Adam A. Lewis, Esq.
Law Offices of Morrison and Foerster
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
Stroock, Stroock and LaVan
2029 Century Park E #1800
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Case: 08-03004 Doc# 18 Filed: 04/23/08 Entered: 04/24/08 12:54:06 Page 3 of 3