Latasha McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING 132 MOTION TO STAY AND VACATING HEARING.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LATASHA MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 15-02904 WHA

ORDER DENYING STAY AND
VACATING HEARING

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,
Defendant.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

In this TILA action, defendant moves for a stay pending its Rule 23(f) petition for

19

permission to appeal the class certification order. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for a

20

stay is DENIED.

21
22

STATEMENT
On June 22, 2016, an order certified two classes: (1) a class under Rule 23(b)(3) to

23

pursue damages only; and (2) a class under Rule 23(b)(2) to pursue declaratory relief only (Dkt.

24

No. 123). Now, defendant moves for a stay pending resolution of its Rule 23(f) petition for

25

permission to appeal the class certification order.

26

Courts consider four factors when evaluating whether to issue a stay: (1) whether the

27

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

28

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public

1

interest lies. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011). A stay is an “intrusion

2

into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review, and accordingly is not a

3

matter of right.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009).

4

This order concludes that a stay is not warranted here. First, for the reasons set out in

5

the class certification order, defendant has not made a strong showing it is likely to succeed on

6

the merits of its appeal. Second, defendant has not shown that it will be irreparably injured

7

absent a stay. Indeed, “[b]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a

8

‘clear case of hardship or inequity.’” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir.

9

2005). Third, a stay would lead to an unwarranted delay in relief for class members. Fourth,
the public interest lies in providing relief to class members, especially where a prior order

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

concluded defendant’s alleged practices violated TILA.

12
13

For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED. Finding oral
argument unnecessary, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2016.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: August 16, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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