Gooden v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., et al.,

Filing 32

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/8/12 RECOMMENDING that 25 MOTION for PROTECTIVE ORDER be granted; discovery and the filing of any motion be stayed pending the ruling by the Bankruptcy Court on the motion t o approve settlement set for hearing in that court on 7/3/12; the parties be directed to file a notice of decision immediately upon a decision being rendered by the Bankruptcy Court; and the parties be directed to file an Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Con ference Report, taking into account for length of time discovery is stayed, within 14 days of the filing of the notice of the Bankruptcy Courts decision with this court. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due 7 days after these findings and recommendations are filed. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHEILA GOODEN, an individual,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:11-cv-02595-JAM-DAD

v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a
Virginia Corporation; and
SUNTRUST BANK, INC., a Georgia
Corporation,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

15
16
17
18

Defendants.
/
This matter came before the court on June 8, 2012, for hearing of defendant

19

Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion for a protective order. (Doc. No. 25.) Attorney

20

Justin Berger appeared on behalf of plaintiff Sheila Gooden and attorney Philip Bariovits

21

appeared on behalf of defendant Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

22

undersigned took defendant’s motion under submission.

23
24

BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2008, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 relief in the United States

25

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 08-34959-B-13. On April 9,

26

2009, plaintiff confirmed a Chapter 13 payment plan. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this
1

1

putative class action matter on September 30, 2011. (Doc. No. 1)

2

On April 20, 2012, the parties filed an Initial Joint Rule 26(f) Conference Report.

3

(Doc. No. 21.) Therein, the parties proposed that plaintiff’s motion for class certification be filed

4

by November 2, 2012. The assigned District Judge adopted the proposed schedule on April 23,

5

2012. (Doc. No. 22.)

6

On May 18, 2012, Jan. P. Johnson, serving as the trustee in plaintiff’s Bankruptcy

7

Court case, signed a settlement agreement and release with defendant Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,

8

agreeing to a dismissal of this civil action, with prejudice as to plaintiff Gooden and without

9

prejudice as to the putative class, in exchange for $7,500. (Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 26-

10

1) at 2-7.) On May 29, 2012, the trustee in the bankruptcy matter filed a notice of hearing on

11

motion to approve the settlement reached by the trustee and defendant. (Doc. No. 27-1 at 4.)

12

Hearing of that motion is currently set in the Bankruptcy Court for July 3, 2012. (Id.) On May

13

30, 2012, defendant filed the motion for a protective order now pending before the court. (Doc.

14

No. 25.) Plaintiff filed opposition on June 1, 2012, (Doc. No. 29), and defendant a reply on June

15

5, 2012. (Doc. No. 30.)

16

Defendant’s motion, though styled as a protective order, actually seeks an order

17

“staying discovery pending the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling on the Trustee’s motion for approval

18

of the settlement.”1 (Doc. No. 25 at 9.) Defendant argues that approval by the Bankruptcy Court

19

of the settlement agreement reached between the Chapter 13 trustee and defendant will resolve

20

this action. (Id. at 6.) Defendant contends that there is little rationale in imposing upon

21

defendant the extensive and expensive discovery plaintiff is pursing, which includes extensive

22

document requests and an expansive deposition, when this case has been “essentially resolved.”

23

(Id. at 9.)

24

/////

25
1

26

In this regard, defendant’s motion is not a motion dealing with a discovery matter as
contemplated by the Local Rules.
2

1

Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion, arguing that her claim is not part of the

2

Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate and that, in any event, the law is clear that the bankruptcy trustee

3

lacks the authority to settle this suit without plaintiff’s approval. (Doc. No. 29 at 9.) Plaintiff has

4

filed a declaration stating that she intends to object to the proposed settlement at the July 3, 2012,

5

hearing before the Bankruptcy Court. (Doc. No. 29-3 at 3.) Accordingly, plaintiff requests that

6

the court deny defendant’s motion and allow discovery in this action to proceed.

7
8

ANALYSIS
“District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the

9

course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672

10

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828,

11

833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Here, defendant argues that the motion for a protective order and stay of

12

discovery should be granted because defendant and the bankruptcy trustee have agreed to a

13

settlement that, if approved by the Bankruptcy Court, will resolve this action. However,

14

defendant acknowledges that whether the trustee has the authority to settle this case “is, frankly,

15

an unsettled issue of law . . . .” (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) Defendant also asserts that the “Bankruptcy

16

Court determination is only five weeks away, a slight delay.” (Doc. No. 25 at 9.)

17

However, under defendant’s proposal, though the time for conducting discovery

18

would be stayed, plaintiff’s time for filing a motion for class certification would continue to run.

19

While a five week delay may be “a slight delay” from defendant’s point of view, plaintiff no

20

doubt views such a delay as substantial. Morever, there is no guarantee that the Bankruptcy

21

Court will issue an order at the time of the scheduled July 3, 2012 hearing. Thus, the Bankruptcy

22

Court’s ruling could be more than five weeks away. Accordingly, the undersigned will not

23

recommend that the time for conducting discovery alone be stayed.

24

Nonetheless, it does appear prudent to await the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling on the

25

trustee’s motion to approve the settlement reached by the Chapter 13 trustee and defendant. A

26

ruling by the Bankruptcy Court that the Chapter 13 trustee had the legal authority to settle this
3

1

civil action and approving the settlement would, obviously, have a significant impact on these

2

proceedings. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the assigned District Judge

3

temporarily stay discovery in this matter and also extend the deadline for the filing of any

4

motions, including plaintiff’s motion for class certification, for the same length of time as

5

discovery is stayed.

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2012 motion for a protective order (Doc. No. 25) be

9

granted;

10

2. Discovery and the filing of any motion be stayed pending the ruling by the

11

Bankruptcy Court on the motion to approve settlement set for hearing in that court on July 3,

12

2012;

13
14

3. The parties be directed to file a notice of decision immediately upon a decision
being rendered by the Bankruptcy Court; and

15

4. The parties be directed to file an Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Conference Report,

16

taking into account for length of time discovery is stayed, within 14 days of the filing of the

17

notice of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision with this court.

18

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

19

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

20

seven (7) days after these findings and recommendations are filed, any party may file written

21

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

22

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”2 The parties are advised that failure to file

23

/////

24
25
26

2

The parties agreed at the hearing to the filing of objections simultaneously and to waive
any right to reply to objections filed in order to expedite the assigned District Judge’s review of
these findings and recommendations.
4

1

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

2

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: June 8, 2012.

4
5
6
7
8

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\gooden2595.stay.f&rs

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5