Latasha McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING IN PART 73 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND VACATING HEARINGS.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)

Download PDF
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 v. ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND VACATING HEARINGS WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant. / 16 17 In this putative class action regarding alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 18 defendant Wells Fargo Bank has moved to stay all proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s 19 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which oral argument took place on November 2, 2015. In 20 Spokeo, the question pending before the Supreme Court is: 21 22 23 Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute. 24 In our case, however, named plaintiff Latasha McLaughlin has alleged harm going well beyond 25 the bare violation of a federal statute. Thus, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in 26 Spokeo, plaintiff’s case will move forward and discovery will proceed. Defendant’s motion for a 27 stay of all proceedings, including discovery, is DENIED. 28 1 It is likely, however, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo will affect the certification motion is complete and the hearing is presently set for February 25. For now, 4 plaintiff’s class certification motion shall be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Supreme Court’s 5 decision in Spokeo and the hearing set for February 25 is VACATED. Seven calendar days after 6 the Supreme Court issues its decision in Spokeo, both sides shall submit a brief, totaling ten 7 pages or less, discussing the decision’s impact on class certification. Each side may respond to 8 the other’s brief, in ten pages or less, seven calendar days after the initial briefs are filed. The 9 hearing on plaintiff’s class certification motion will take place two weeks after the responsive 10 briefs are due, and shall be heard on the Court’s regular civil motion calendar. To illustrate, if 11 For the Northern District of California construction of a potential class at the Rule 23 stage. The briefing on plaintiff’s class 3 United States District Court 2 the Supreme Court hands down the Spokeo decision on March 3, then the parties’ initial briefs 12 will be due on March 10, responses will be due on March 17, and the hearing will take place on 13 March 31. 14 Defendant’s recently filed summary judgment motion shall also be HELD IN ABEYANCE 15 and the March 17 hearing is VACATED. The summary judgment motion will not be heard until 16 after the class certification stage, and if a class is certified, the summary judgment motion will 17 not be heard until after the class notice has been disseminated and the deadline to opt out or 18 intervene has passed. The summary judgment briefing, however, may be completed prior to the 19 end of the class notice period. Thus, plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s summary judgment 20 motion shall be due fourteen calendar days after the class certification order issues. Defendant’s 21 reply shall be due seven calendar days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: February 17, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 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?