‘Special Circumstances’ Warrant Staying Case vs. ECMC, Says Plaintiff
The U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego shouldn’t dismiss plaintiff Cynthia Lepur’s complaint against student loan servicer Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) based on the prohibition against claim splitting, said Lepur’s opposition Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00014) to ECMC’s…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Feb. 1 motion to dismiss (see 2302020029). Lepur is also a named plaintiff in another pending class action lawsuit against the same defendant, Mahboob v. ECMC, it said. She agrees the two lawsuits at issue “arise from a common set of facts,” that ECMS allegedly recorded its phone conversations with consumers without their consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, it said. But the court should decline to dismiss her action under the doctrine against claim-splitting due to “special circumstances,” it said. Lepur has “a meritorious claim,” but there exists a possibility that the Mahboob action may be dismissed as lead plaintiff Beheshta Mahboob “was delayed in her filing,” it said. “As such, the equities weigh in favor of staying the present action,” rather than dismissing it, pending a resolution of ECMC’s motion to dismiss in the Mahboob action, it said. If ECMC’s motion to dismiss is granted in Mahboob, “there will no longer be two separate actions and the rule against claim splitting will not apply,” it said.