Mandrigues et al-v-World Savings, Inc. et al

Filing 149

ORDER LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/14/09. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT FOR CITATION 8

**E-Filed 1/14/09**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

DOLORES MANDRIGUES, JUANITA JONES, AL F. MINYEN, WILMA R. MINYEN, MARK CLAUSON, and CHRISTINA CLAUSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD SAVINGS, INC., WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB, and WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants.

Case Number C 07-4497 JF (RS) ORDER1 LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS

Currently pending before this Court are Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction. On November 21, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for administrative relief requesting that the Court vacate the hearing on Plaintiffs' motions and issue a stay on the ground that this action is one of four currently the subject of a motion to transfer pending before

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) O R D E R LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS ( JF L C 3 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"). In applying the factors governing the issuance of stays, the Court observed that "much as `[a] preliminary injunction is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable loss of rights before judgment,' the present inquiry concerns only whether Plaintiffs are likely enough to succeed in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief that the Court should preserve their right to proceed without further delay, notwithstanding the countervailing interest of judicial economy discussed above." Order Denying Request for Administrative Relief, at 4:18-24 (quoting Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. ABMH & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Court's assessment of the likelihood that Plaintiffs might succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction was limited to a review of Plaintiffs' moving papers and less than one page of cursory opposing argument contained in Defendants' motion for administrative relief. Noting the somewhat generalized nature of Plaintiffs' evidence of imminent, irreparable harm, the Court also considered (1) the serious and irreparable quality of the alleged harm, (2) Defendants' limited and unpersuasive attempt to undermine Plaintiffs' evidence based solely on the relative magnitude of the alleged harm, and (3) the large number of recent decisions authorizing TILA claims nearly identical to those advanced by Plaintiffs, and based on very similar loan documents. In light of the foregoing, the Court concluded that considerations of judicial economy did not justify a potentially lengthy postponement of Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain relief. However, having now had the benefit of full briefing, the Court is inclined to deny Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to provide concrete evidence of imminent, irreparable harm caused by Defendants' alleged wrongdoing, either with respect to the named individuals or the putative class. It follows from this conclusion that the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiffs no longer offsets the strong considerations of judicial economy outlined in the Court's previous order, and the Court therefore is inclined to stay the instant action pending a decision from the JPML. In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby advises the parties that oral argument on January 16, 2009 will be 2
C a s e No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) O R D E R LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS ( JF L C 3 )

1 2

limited to the merits of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
C a s e No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) O R D E R LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS ( JF L C 3 )

DATED: 1/14/09 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Order has been served upon the following persons: Alicia Anne Adornato [e-mail] David M. Arbogast [e-mail], [e-mail] Jack R. Nelson [e-mail], [e-mail] Jeffrey K Berns [e-mail], [e-mail] Jonathan Shub [e-mail], [e-mail] Keith David Yandell [e-mail], [e-mail] Michael C Eyerly [e-mail] Michael J. Quirk [e-mail] Patrick DeBlase [e-mail] Paul R. Kiesel [e-mail], [e-mail] Notice has been delivered by other means to: Mark R. Cuker Williams Cuker Berezofsky 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd Suite 800 Philiadelphia, PA 19103

4
C a s e No. C 07-4497 JF (RS) O R D E R LIMITING SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS ( JF L C 3 )