Chandler et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 11/23/2011. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/7/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

No. C-06-1770 EMC

THIS CASE RELATES TO ALL CASES
___________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IN RE WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE OVERTIME PAY
LITIGATION

For Case Nos.:
C-06-1770 EMC, Mevorah, Urso
C-06-4481 EMC, Perry
C-05-1175 EMC, Mevorah
C-05-2722 EMC, Perez
C-06-1991 EMC, Miles

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff Caroline Urso and Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage have filed a joint request

18

asking the Court to terminate the MDL action and transmit a copy of the order terminating the action

19

to the Clerk of the MDL panel pursuant to MDL Rule 10.1(a). See Docket No. 417 in Case No. C-

20

06-1770 EMC (stipulated request). Having reviewed the request, the Court hereby issues the order

21

to show cause for each of the following cases that comprise the MDL action (i.e., Cases Nos. C-06-

22

1770 EMC, C-06-4481 EMC, C-05-1175 EMC, C-05-2722 EMC, and C-06-1991 EMC).

23

More specifically, the Court orders the parties in each case to show cause why the stipulated

24

request should not be granted and why the MDL action, including its underlying cases, should not be

25

dismissed with prejudice and terminated as a result. This order is necessary because, in at least

26

some of the underlying cases, state law claims were asserted in the complaint in addition to claims

27

under the FLSA. Thus, the settlement of the FLSA claims did not necessarily dispose of the

28

underlying cases in their entireties.

1

The Court acknowledges that plaintiffs’ counsel in several of the cases have orally

2

represented to the Court that there are no claims that are being pursued such that the cases may be

3

closed. However, to ensure that the record is clear that the cases and MDL action should in fact be

4

closed, the Court finds this order to show cause appropriate. A response to this order to show cause

5

is necessary only if a party believes that the MDL action, including its underlying cases, should not

6

be dismissed with prejudice and terminated as a result. Thus, if counsel believe there is nothing to

7

pursue, then they need not respond, and the lack of a response shall be deemed an admission that the

8

MDL action should be dismissed with prejudice and terminated.

9

Any response to the order to show cause must be filed by November 23, 2011.
If the Court receives no responses to this order to show cause, then the Court shall grant the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

stipulated request, and the Clerk of the Court transmit a copy of the terminating order to the MDL

12

Panel. See MDL Rule No. 10.1(a) (providing that, “[w]here the transferee district court terminates

13

an action by valid order, including but not limited to summary judgment, judgment of dismissal and

14

judgment upon stipulation, the transferee district court clerk shall transmit a copy of that order to the

15

Clerk of the Panel”). The cases related to the MDL action, to the extent they have not been

16

resolved, shall then continue as individual cases (because of the decertification of the Rule 23

17

California class).

18

A copy of this order is being filed in Case No. C-11-3841 LB because, although it is not one

19

of the cases comprising the MDL action, the plaintiffs in the case have asked that the case be related

20

to the MDL action. As it appears that the MDL action may be terminated, the Court formally defers

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

ruling on the motion to relate in Case No. C-11-3841 LB. Assuming that the MDL action be

2

terminated, then the plaintiffs should re-notice the motion to relate in the next lowest-numbered case

3

that is not part of the MDL, which appears to be Case No. C-10-0744 EMC. The Court would be

4

inclined to grant that motion to relate.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: November 7, 2011

9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3