Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATASHA MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-02904 WHA

ORDER DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

AND VACATING HEARINGS

In this putative class action regarding alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act,

defendant Wells Fargo Bank has moved to stay all proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s

decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which oral argument took place on November 2, 2015. In

Spokeo, the question pending before the Supreme Court is:

Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff

who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not

otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing

a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal

statute. 

In our case, however, named plaintiff Latasha McLaughlin has alleged harm going well beyond

the bare violation of a federal statute. Thus, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in

Spokeo, plaintiff’s case will move forward and discovery will proceed. Defendant’s motion for a

stay of all proceedings, including discovery, is DENIED.

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 89 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

It is likely, however, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo will affect the

construction of a potential class at the Rule 23 stage. The briefing on plaintiff’s class

certification motion is complete and the hearing is presently set for February 25. For now,

plaintiff’s class certification motion shall be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Supreme Court’s

decision in Spokeo and the hearing set for February 25 is VACATED. Seven calendar days after

the Supreme Court issues its decision in Spokeo, both sides shall submit a brief, totaling ten

pages or less, discussing the decision’s impact on class certification. Each side may respond to

the other’s brief, in ten pages or less, seven calendar days after the initial briefs are filed. The

hearing on plaintiff’s class certification motion will take place two weeks after the responsive

briefs are due, and shall be heard on the Court’s regular civil motion calendar. To illustrate, if

the Supreme Court hands down the Spokeo decision on March 3, then the parties’ initial briefs

will be due on March 10, responses will be due on March 17, and the hearing will take place on

March 31. 

Defendant’s recently filed summary judgment motion shall also be HELD IN ABEYANCE

and the March 17 hearing is VACATED. The summary judgment motion will not be heard until

after the class certification stage, and if a class is certified, the summary judgment motion will

not be heard until after the class notice has been disseminated and the deadline to opt out or

intervene has passed. The summary judgment briefing, however, may be completed prior to the

end of the class notice period. Thus, plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s summary judgment

motion shall be due fourteen calendar days after the class certification order issues. Defendant’s

reply shall be due seven calendar days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 89 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2