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)
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?