Mitzie Perez et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al

Filing 151

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE; AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND; DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDERS; GRANTING MOTION TO STAY RELATED DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION FOR RELIEF; VACATING HEARING . Plaintiffs' class allegations are stricken, and plaintiffs are afforded leave to amend for purposes of redefining the proposed class. Any Third Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than February 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 30, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MITZIE PEREZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-00454-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE; AFFORDING
PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND;
DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY
ORDERS; GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY RELATED DISCOVERY
PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION
FOR RELIEF; VACATING HEARING

13
14

Before the Court are three motions filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.:

15

(1) "Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint" ("Motion to Strike"),

16

filed November 22, 2017; (2) "Motion for Relief from the December 15, 2017 and

17

December 21, 2017 Discovery Orders of the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte Regarding

18

Scope of Discovery and Organizational Charts" ("Motion for Relief"), filed December 27,

19

2017; and (3) "Motion to Stay Related Discovery Pending Final Disposition of Wells

20

Fargo's Motion for Relief from the December 15, 2017 Discovery Order of the Honorable

21

Elizabeth D. Laporte" ("Motion to Stay"), filed December 27, 2017. 1 The Court, having

22

read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions,

23

deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

24

February 2, 2018, and rules as follows.

25

//

26
27
28

1

The parties' respective administrative motions to seal specified exhibits, filed in
connection therewith, will be addressed by separate order.

For the reasons stated by defendant in the Motion to Strike, the Court finds the

1
2

proposed class definition set forth in the Second Amended Complaint is a fail-safe class.

3

(See Def.'s Mot. to Strike, filed November 22, 2017, at 4:8 - 6:11.) Accordingly, the

4

Motion to Strike is hereby GRANTED and plaintiffs' class allegations are hereby

5

STRICKEN.2 Plaintiffs are hereby afforded leave to amend for purposes of redefining the

6

proposed class; any Third Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than February 16,

7

2018.

8
9

As plaintiffs have been given leave to amend to redefine the proposed class, the
Court finds it appropriate to defer ruling on the Motion for Relief, by which defendant
seeks an order vacating Magistrate Judge Laporte's order requiring defendant to provide

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovery as to matters relating solely to putative class members. Accordingly, the Court

12

hereby DEFERS ruling on the Motion for Relief until after plaintiffs have filed a Third

13

Amended Complaint and the Court has resolved any motion to strike the class allegations

14

alleged therein.

15

Lastly, defendant's Motion to Stay, by which defendant seeks an order staying the

16

above-referenced discovery pending resolution of the Motion for Relief, is hereby

17

GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: January 30, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

In light of the Court's order striking the class allegations, the Court does not
address herein defendant's additional argument that plaintiffs' individual claims are not
typical of those of the proposed class as presently alleged.
2