Medeiros v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 58

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The hearing on Equifax's motion to dismiss is continued to April 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. The Initial Case Management Conference is continued to June 16, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than June 9, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 03/29/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RUDOLPH JUGOZ, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 14 15 TERESA ROBLES, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et. al., Defendants. 16 WILHELMINE MADEIROS, 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., JANET PERKINS, Plaintiff, 23 24 25 26 27 28 Re: Dkt. No. 22, 32, 46 Case No. 16-cv-05693-MMC ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 26, 31, 40 Case No. 16-cv-06338-MMC ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 34 Defendants. 21 22 ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 12 13 Case No. 16-cv-05687-MMC v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-06347-MMC ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: Dkt. No. 21 1 LACY ROSE, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 5 Case No. 17-cv-00419-MMC ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE v. EQUIFAX, INC., et al., Defendants. 6 Before the Court are eight motions to dismiss, all set for hearing on April 7, 2017: 7 (1) defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s (“Experian”) motion, filed November 8 15, 2016, in Case No. 16-5687; (2) Experian’s motion, filed November 15, 2016, in Case 9 No. 16-5693; (3) defendant Equifax, Inc.’s (“Equifax”) motion, filed December 19, 2016, in Case No. 16-5687; (4) defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s motion, filed 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 December 19, 2016, in Case No. 16-5693; (5) Equifax’s motion, filed December 27, 12 2016, in Case No. 16-5693; (6) Equifax’s motion, filed December 27, 2016, in Case No. 13 16-6347; (7) Equifax’s motion, filed January 11, 2017, in Case No. 16-6338; and (8) 14 defendant Credit One Bank, National Association’s motion, filed January 13, 2017, in 15 Case No. 16-5687. 16 17 18 Also before the Court is defendant TD Bank USA, National Association’s motion to dismiss, filed March 17, 2017, in Case No.17-419, and set for hearing on April 28, 2017. The above-referenced motions present common questions of law pertaining to 19 how a debt should be reported after a debtor has filed for protection under the 20 Bankruptcy Act and the bankruptcy court has confirmed a reorganization plan. In the 21 interests of judicial economy, the Court finds it preferable to hold a hearing on the above- 22 referenced motions to dismiss on a single date. 23 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONTINUES the hearings in the eight above- 24 referenced motions filed in Case Nos. 16-5687, 16-5693, 16-6338, and 16-6347, to April 25 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. 26 Further, the Initial Case Management Conferences in each of the above- 27 referenced five cases is hereby CONTINUED from May 12, 2017 to June 16, 2017, at 28 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed in each case no later than 2 1 June 9, 2017. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: March 29, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?