Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03174/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03174-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORI KEMPLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASHCALL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-03174-MEJ 

ORDER RE: RULE 59(A) MOTION 

FRAMEWORK

In light of the June 2, 2016 status conference in this matter, the Court STAYS any pending 

deadlines and ORDERS the parties to meet and confer (in person, telephonically, or by web-based 

conference) as to the following framework for addressing Defendant CashCall Inc.’s anticipated

Rule 59(a) motion following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. 

Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016).

1. CashCall may file its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), but in 

doing so, the Court requires CashCall (and later Plaintiffs) to address the following:

a. Whether at the time of the trial and the issuance of the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, the injury in fact requirement in this circuit was 

different than it is now under Spokeo, and whether given Spokeo and the 

potential change in the law concerning Article III standing, there is any 

basis for Plaintiffs to now submit evidence to prove Article III standing and 

for CashCall to prepare a defense on the same grounds.

b. Whether the Court must also consider other relevant changes or 

clarifications in the law that may affect Plaintiffs’ conditioning claims prior 

to the issuance of judgment. See, e.g., Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 319 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016).

2. Following CashCall’s motion, Plaintiffs may file an opposition or a cross motion for a 

new trial under Rule 59. 

3. CashCall may submit a reply, as may Plaintiffs if they affirmatively move under Rule 

59. No sur-replies will be accepted, however.

4. The parties will have two weeks between each submission to file their responses.

The parties may file a stipulation agreeing to this framework and informing the court of 

whether Plaintiffs intend to (1) oppose CashCall’s motion, (2) file a cross-motion, or (3) file 

another relevant motion that addresses the Court’s concerns above. If the parties cannot so 

stipulate, they may submit proposals for modifying the framework above or otherwise objecting to 

it. Their responses are due June 17, 2016.

No motions may be filed until the Court has ruled on a final framework and schedule for 

these issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 319 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2