Trahan v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 95

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/11/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JERRY TRAHAN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 09-03111 JSW

v.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
/

14
15

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

16

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

17

DECEMBER 13, 2013, AT 9:00 A.M.:

18

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

19

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

20

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

21

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

22

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

23

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

24

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

25

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

26

attorneys who are

27
28

1

working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained

2

herein.

3

1.

Now that the class has been certified, is Mr. Trahan willing to enter into a binding

4

stipulation that the amount in controversy is less than $5,000,000, either as to damages

5

or as to attorneys fees? See Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, – U.S. –, 133 S.Ct. 1345,

6

at 1350 (2013) (declining to reach issue of whether a stipulation limiting attorneys’ fees

7

would be binding).

8

2.

9

the amount in controversy, which was filed before the class was certified, are now

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

Does Mr. Trahan assert that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint regarding

binding? If so, on what authority does he rely to support that position?
3.

Does U.S. Bank concede that a motion can put a defendant on notice that a case is or has

12

become removable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); see also Williams v. Ruan Transport

13

Corp., 2013 WL 5492205 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013) (noting that motion for class

14

certification and motion for default judgment would have put defendant on notice of

15

class size for purposes of removal under CAFA).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: December 11, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2