Perkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS EQUIFAX, INC.'s MOTION TO DISMISS. The hearing is 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)

Download PDF
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?