Dugan et al v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

Filing 217


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOHN DUGAN, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 12-02549 WHA Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, AND VACATING HEARING LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC, 14 Defendant. / 15 16 The case management order in this action set deadlines of November 30, 2012, for 17 pleading amendments and March 7, 2013, for filing a motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 47 18 at 2). After substantial briefing, a January 17 order permitted plaintiffs to file an amended 19 complaint and add additional plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 98). It later became apparent that plaintiffs’ 20 purpose in amending was to expand the potential scope of their class certification motion. 21 Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for class certification by the March 7 deadline (Dkt. 22 Nos. 163–64). The motion sought to certify five classes and subclasses implicating residents of 23 31 countries, with claims potentially subject to the laws of at least eight domestic and foreign 24 jurisdictions. Plaintiffs were clearly “seeking certification of all the classes they could imagine, 25 evidently hoping that the Court [would] filter the confusion into something coherent” (Dkt. No. 26 203 at 3). Nevertheless, after extensive oral argument and four rounds of supplemental 27 submissions, an April 19 order granted plaintiffs’ motion in part and certified two “120% clause” 28 classes. Plaintiffs’ request to certify various “Cost of Funds” classes, however, was denied (Id. at 7–12). 1 Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for reconsideration, styled as a motion under 2 Rule 21(c)(1)(C) to amend the class certification order. In the alternative, plaintiffs request that 3 the case management order deadlines be modified so that they may file a second amended 4 complaint and a second motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 209). Plaintiffs seek to reopen 5 the class certification phase and certify an additional, “narrower” version of the rejected “Cost of 6 Funds” classes. 7 Leaving aside the procedural propriety of the instant motion, resolving plaintiffs’ class classes in plaintiffs’ overbroad proposals. After much work and wading through voluminous 10 materials, two potentially manageable classes were certified. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to 11 For the Northern District of California certification motion required a substantial investment of time and effort to identify certifiable 9 United States District Court 8 present a reasonable, narrow Cost of Funds class during the prior rounds of briefing. That 12 opportunity has been lost. This order declines to reopen the class certification phase once again. 13 A prior order warned plaintiffs that “[c]ounsel should be careful not to overreach lest 14 their Rule 23 motions eventually collapse of their own weight” (Dkt. No. 92 at 6). Counsel 15 should have heeded the admonition to avoid overreaching and to present manageable and 16 coherent candidates for certification. To allow them to try again would reward an 17 uncommendable tactic. And, the Court continues in the view that control over any cost-of-funds 18 claim is best left to each borrower to be asserted individually if and when the bank asserts a 19 default against said individual. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause 20 21 under Rule 16(b) to modify the case management order. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ alternative 22 motions are also DENIED. The June 6 hearing is VACATED. This ruling is without prejudice to 23 any potential motion to narrow the certified classes or otherwise streamline the action prior to 24 trial. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: May 3, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?