Chandler et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 18

ORDER TERMINATING MDL ACTION (For Case Nos. C06-1770 EMC, C06-4481 EMC, C05-1175 EMC, C05-2722 EMC, and C06-1991 EMC). Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/6/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

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 TERMINATING MDL ACTION

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

Previously, the Court issued an order in which it asked the parties in each case comprising

18

the MDL action to show cause why Ms. Urso and Wells Fargo’s stipulated request to terminate the

19

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

20

not be dismissed with prejudice and terminated as a result. See Docket No. 424 (order). The Court

21

noted in its order to show cause that a response was necessary

22
23
24

only if a party believes that the MDL action, including its underlying
cases, should not be dismissed with prejudice and terminated as a
result. Thus, if counsel believe there is nothing to pursue, then they
need not respond, and the lack of a response shall be deemed an
admission that the MDL action should be dismissed with prejudice and
terminated.

25
26
27
28

Docket No. 424 (Order at 2) (emphasis in original).
No party filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, the Court hereby
GRANTS Ms. Urso and Wells Fargo’s stipulated request to terminate the MDL action. In

1

accordance with this order, the Clerk of the Court shall terminate the MDL action, including

2

each underlying case, and close the file in each case. In addition, the Clerk of the Court shall

3

transmit a copy of this terminating order to the MDL Panel consistent with MDL Rule No.

4

10.1(a).

5

Any cases related to the MDL action, to the extent they have not been resolved, shall

6

continue as individual cases. Now that the MDL action has been terminated, the plaintiffs in C-11-

7

3841 JW should renotice their motion to relate to the next lowest-numbered case that is not part of

8

the MDL.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: December 6, 2011

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2