United States District Court, E.D. Washington
RUSSELL D. ROSCO and BONNIE R. ROSCO, Plaintiffs,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS; FIRST BANK MORTGAGE; and ADVANTAGE GROUP, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is Plaintiffs' Objection to Motion for an Order
Confirming the Award or in the Alternative to Stay Execution
of Judgment Pending Closing of Federal Case, ECF No. 282.
Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendant TransUnion's
execution of judgment pending the full disposition of this
matter in a Washington state court. The Court construes
Plaintiffs' motion as a motion for a protective order.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record and is
Bonnie and Russell Rosco (“Plaintiffs”) initiated
this lawsuit against Defendant TransUnion and a number of
other defendants in 2015 alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
See ECF No. 1 at 3. The Court has previously
detailed the extensive procedural history of this action in
its prior orders and will not repeat that history in this
order. See, e.g., ECF No. 276.
and TransUnion reached a settlement agreement in June 2016,
and the Court subsequently issued an Order Granting
TransUnion's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement,
ECF No. 186. TransUnion then moved for attorney's fees
and costs. See ECF No. 188. The Court issued a
judgment in favor of TransUnion against Plaintiffs in the
amount of $6, 862.40 for attorney's fees and costs.
See ECF Nos. 217, 218.
the Court adjudicated Plaintiffs' remaining claims
against other defendants in this matter, Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal regarding the Court's judgment in favor
of TransUnion against Plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 230
and 232. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 275.
the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of Plaintiffs' appeal,
in the process of issuing another judgment in this matter,
the case was mistakenly closed on December 7, 2017, but was
reopened the same day. See ECF No. 277. Perhaps
unaware that the case had been reopened on December 7, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reopen the Case, ECF No. 280, on
January 6, 2018, which the Court denied as moot, ECF No. 281.
January 23, 2018, TransUnion initiated enforcement
proceedings in the Okanogan Superior Court, a Washington
state court, to execute the judgment awarding attorney's
fees and costs to TransUnion, ECF No. 218. See ECF
No. 282-1. Plaintiffs filed the present motion, requesting
this Court deny TransUnion's state court motion to
confirm the award or, in the alternative, stay the execution
of the judgment pending the closing of the case and
Plaintiffs' appeal. ECF No. 282.
Standard for Denying a Motion in a State Court
move this Court to deny TransUnion's motion to confirm
the award against Plaintiffs in a Washington state court.
See ECF No. 282. TransUnion filed its foreign
judgment in the Okanogan County Superior Court of Washington,
ECF No. 282-1, and, consequently, the Court does not have
jurisdiction to make a ruling in the state court matter.
the Court generally construes pro se pleadings
liberally. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 854
(9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court construes
Plaintiffs' motion as a request for an injunction of the
state court proceeding.
Standard for Staying the Enforcement of a
move this Court to enjoin the state court, staying the
execution of the judgment in favor of TransUnion ...