Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04758/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04758-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C-07-04758 JF

ORDER STAYING ACTION

(JFLC3)

**E-filed 03/07/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VICTOR GAMALY, on behalf of himself and

others similarly situated

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

TUMI, INC., Does 1 through 10

 Defendants.

Case Number C-07-04758 JF

ORDER STAYING ACTION 1

On February 15, 2008, during oral argument on a motion to dismiss brought by Defendant

Tumi (“Tumi”), Tumi suggested that the instant case should be stayed pending the outcome of a

decision by the Ninth Circuit in Soualian v. International Coffee & Tea, LLC, and possible

Congressional action on the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007. Tumi

noted that Judge Illston has issued a similar stay in Lopez v. Gymboree Corp., C07-087 (N.D.

Cal. Nov. 1, 2007). Lopez contains allegations nearly identical to those in the instant case. In

Lopez, Judge Illston noted that “the Ninth Circuit’s decision [in Soualian] is likely to illuminate

the issues surrounding class certification.” Accordingly, she determined that it would be prudent

not to adjudicate the plaintiff’s motion for class certification prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Soualian. 

Case 5:07-cv-04758-JF Document 21 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C-07-04758 JF

ORDER STAYING ACTION

(JFLC3)

This Court did not address Tumi’s request for a stay at the February 15 hearing or in its

subsequent order dated February 25, 2008 denying Tumi’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs

had not had an opportunity to brief the issue. Instead, the Court requested that the parties submit

simultaneous letter briefs on or before February 29, 2008 as to why a stay should not be issued. 

On February 28, 2008, counsel for Plaintiff Victor Gamaly informed the Court that Plaintiff does

not oppose a stay in the instant case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Soualian. 

Accordingly, the instant action will be stayed until further order of the Court. Counsel is directed

to advise the Court of any developments in Soualian. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2008 _____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04758-JF Document 21 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C-07-04758 JF

ORDER STAYING ACTION

(JFLC3)

Copies of this Order have been sent to:

Ben F Pierce Gore piercegore@gorelawfirm.com 

Stephanie Anne Sheridan stephanie.sheridan@sdma.com

Case 5:07-cv-04758-JF Document 21 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3