Jugoz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al
Filing
51
ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON DEFENDANTS EQUIFAX, INC. AND CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS. The hearings are continued to April 7, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/20/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2017)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
RUDOLPH JUGOZ,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
13
14
TERESA ROBLES,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et. al.,
Defendants.
JANET PERKINS,
16
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
WILHELMINE MADEIROS,
24
25
26
Re: Dkt. No. 31, 40
Case No. 16-cv-06347-MMC
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC.'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 21
Case No. 16-cv-06338-MMC
Plaintiff,
22
23
ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANTS WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A. AND EQUIFAX, INC.’S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Defendants.
20
21
Case No. 16-cv-05693-MMC
Plaintiff,
18
19
Re: Dkt. No. 32, 46
Plaintiff,
15
17
ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANTS EQUIFAX, INC. AND
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.’S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS
Defendants.
11
12
Case No. 16-cv-05687-MMC
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANTS EQUIFAX, INC. AND
BANK OF AMERICA N.A.’S MOTIONS
TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 34
Before the Court are seven motions to dismiss: (1) defendant Equifax, Inc.’s
27
(“Equifax”) motion in Case No. 16-5687, filed December 19, 2016, and noticed for
28
hearing on January 27, 2017; (2) defendant Credit One Bank, National Association’s
1
motion in Case No. 16-5687, filed January 13, 2017, and noticed for hearing on March 7,
2
2017; (3) defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s motion in Case No. 16-
3
5693, filed December 19, 2016, and noticed for hearing on January 27, 2017; (4)
4
Equifax’s motion in Case No. 16-5693, filed December 27, 2016, and noticed for hearing
5
on February 3, 2017; (5) Equifax’s motion in Case No. 16-6347, filed December 27, 2016,
6
and noticed for hearing on February 3, 2017; (6) Equifax’s motion in Case No. 16-6338,
7
filed January 11, 2017, and noticed for hearing on February 24, 2017; and (7) defendant
8
Bank of America, National Association’s motion in Case No. 16-6338, filed January 20,
9
2017, and noticed for hearing on February 24, 2017.
10
Also before the Court is defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
(“Experian”) and Equifax’s “Motion to Consolidate,” filed December 22, 2016, in each of
12
the above-referenced four cases and noticed for hearing on February 17, 2017, a date
13
subsequent to the dates on which four of the motions to dismiss are noticed to be heard.
14
In the motion to consolidate, Experian and Equifax argue the above-titled cases
15
should be consolidated with each other, and with a number of cases pending before other
16
judges, for the asserted reason that all said cases present common questions of law
17
pertaining to how a debt should be reported after a debtor has filed for protection under
18
the Bankruptcy Act and the bankruptcy court has confirmed a reorganization plan. In
19
each of the above-referenced motions to dismiss, the moving defendant seeks a ruling on
20
the above-referenced issue.
21
Under such circumstances, the Court finds it preferable to consider the motions to
22
dismiss after the motion for consolidation has been resolved, and, in the interests of
23
judicial economy, to hold a hearing on all seven motions to dismiss on one date.
24
25
26
27
Accordingly, the Court hereby CONTINUES the hearings on the above-referenced
seven motions to dismiss to April 7, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
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?