Muniz v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 48


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Matthew J. Preusch (SBN 298144) KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-456-1496 Fax: 805-456-1497 Email: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Derek W. Loeser, admitted pro hac vice Gretchen Freeman Cappio, admitted pro hac vice KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: 206-623-1900 Fax: 206-623-3384 Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 VICTOR MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. 3:17-cv-04995-MMC 16 Plaintiff, 17 18 19 20 v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING CONSOLIDATION ORDER, CONTINUING HEARING, AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT Judge: Maxine M. Chesney Defendants. 21 22 I. 23 24 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(A)(2), and following the voluntary dismissal 25 of Brach v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., No. 17-cv-05990 (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff Victor Muniz; Defendants 26 Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (collectively, 27 “Defendants” or “Wells Fargo”) stipulate to this administrative motion seeking the following relief: 28 No. 3:17-cv-04995-MMC 1 STIPULATION VACATING CONSOLIDATION ORDER • 1 2 vacating this Court’s prior order, Dkt. 45, consolidating this action with Brach v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., No. 17-cv-05990 (N.D. Cal.); 3 • continuing the December 8, 2017 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of 4 Interim Class Counsel, Dkt. 26, to January 12, 2018, to coincide with the Case 5 Management Conference in this matter scheduled for that date; and 6 • 7 permitting Plaintiff Muniz to file an Amended Complaint in this matter by December 18, 8 2017, and for the Parties to adhere to the previously-agreed to briefing schedule for an 9 amended complaint. See Dkt. 45 (consolidation and briefing schedule order). 10 11 II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff Victor Muniz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 12 13 situated, filed the complaint in this matter alleging claims arising out of Wells Fargo’s mortgage interest 14 rate lock extension fee practices. Dkt. 1. On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff Muniz moved this Court to 15 appoint Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as interim lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Dkt. 26. 16 17 18 On October 19, 2017, plaintiff Brian Brach filed Brach v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., No. 17-cv05990 (N.D. Cal.), which the parties agreed met the requirements for related cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12. This Court related those cases on November 6, 2017, Dkt. 41, and consolidated them on 19 November 15, 2017, setting a deadline of December 18, 2017 for a Consolidated Amended Complaint 20 21 and deadlines for responsive pleading and briefing. Dkt. 45. Following the filing of Brach, Plaintiff 22 Muniz revised his interim lead counsel motion to seek appointment of both Keller Rohrback and the 23 Gibbs Law Group as co-lead counsel. That motion is set to be heard by this Court on December 8, 2017. 24 Dkt. 42. 25 26 On November 29, 2017, following the Court’s consolidation and scheduling orders, Plaintiff Brach voluntarily dismissed his case against Wells Fargo, Brach v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., No. 17-cv- 27 28 No. 3:17-cv-04995-MMC 2 STIPULATION VACATING CONSOLIDATION ORDER 1 05990 (N.D. Cal.) with prejudice, Dkt. 26. The Gibbs Law Group is no longer seeking appointment as 2 interim co-lead counsel in this matter. 3 Upon learning of Mr. Brach’s intent to dismiss his case, counsel for the Parties conferred on 4 November 28, 2017 to discuss how to ease the burden on the Court given the changed circumstances, 5 6 while allowing this matter to efficiently proceed. The Parties agree that the dismissal of the previously- 7 consolidated Brach matter creates good cause for changes to the Court’s schedule, and therefore 8 respectfully request the following relief. 9 10 11 III. ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED: This Court’s prior consolidation order, Dkt. 45, is VACATED. The action Muniz v. Wells Fargo 12 & Co. et al., No. 3:17-cv-04995 is no longer consolidated with Brach v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., No. 13 14 15 17-cv-05990. Plaintiff Muniz shall file an amended complaint by December 18, 2017. Defendants shall have 16 until February 1, 2018, to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. If Defendants file any 17 motions directed at the amended complaint, the opposition and reply briefs shall be filed by March 19, 18 2018 and April 12, 2018, respectively, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. 19 The deadline for Plaintiff Muniz to oppose Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 37, and 20 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Class Definition and Tolling Allegations, Dkt. 38, is hereby extended to 21 22 23 December 18, 2017. The filing of any amended complaint by that date shall render moot those Motions. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, Dkt. 26, currently 24 scheduled for December 8, 2017, is continued to January 12, 2018 to coincide with the Case 25 Management Conference currently scheduled for this matter. 26 27 28 No. 3:17-cv-04995-MMC 3 STIPULATION VACATING CONSOLIDATION ORDER 1 DATED this 30th day of November, 2017. 2 3 4 /s/ Derek W. Loeser Derek W. Loeser (SBN 24274) Counsel for Plaintiff Muniz /s/ Amanda L. Groves (w/permission) Amanda L. Groves (SBN 187216) Counsel for Defendants 5 6 7 /s/ Matthew J. Preusch Matthew J. Preusch (SBN 298144) Counsel for Plaintiff Muniz 8 9 10 11 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED 12 13 DATED: November 30, 2017 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. 3:17-cv-04995-MMC 4 STIPULATION VACATING CONSOLIDATION ORDER

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?