Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904-20/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 STAY AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this TILA action, defendant moves for a stay pending its Rule 23(f) petition for

permission to appeal the class certification order. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for a

stay is DENIED.

STATEMENT

On June 22, 2016, an order certified two classes: (1) a class under Rule 23(b)(3) to

pursue damages only; and (2) a class under Rule 23(b)(2) to pursue declaratory relief only (Dkt.

No. 123). Now, defendant moves for a stay pending resolution of its Rule 23(f) petition for

permission to appeal the class certification order.

Courts consider four factors when evaluating whether to issue a stay: (1) whether the

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 138 Filed 08/16/16 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

interest lies. Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011). A stay is an “intrusion

into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review, and accordingly is not a

matter of right.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009). 

This order concludes that a stay is not warranted here. First, for the reasons set out in

the class certification order, defendant has not made a strong showing it is likely to succeed on

the merits of its appeal. Second, defendant has not shown that it will be irreparably injured

absent a stay. Indeed, “[b]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a

‘clear case of hardship or inequity.’” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir.

2005). Third, a stay would lead to an unwarranted delay in relief for class members. Fourth,

the public interest lies in providing relief to class members, especially where a prior order

concluded defendant’s alleged practices violated TILA.

For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED. Finding oral

argument unnecessary, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 138 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 2