Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04309/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04309-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re WELLS FARGO RESIDENTIAL

MORTGAGE LENDING DISCRIMINATION

LITIGATION

___________________________________

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS /

Lead Case No. C-07-3880 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

PENDING DECISION ON TRANSFER;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending a Decision

on Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.” The motion was filed January

24, 2008, amended February 21, 2008, and noticed for hearing on March 28, 2008. 

Plaintiffs have filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the

matter suitable for decision on the papers submitted, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

March 28, 2008, and rules as follows.

On March 27, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) is

scheduled to consider defendant’s motion to consolidate five actions, specifically, the two

actions consolidated in the above-titled matter, a third action pending in this District, an

action pending in the Central District of California, and an action pending in the Northern

District of Illinois. At present, other than the instant motion to stay, there are no motions

Case 3:07-cv-04309-MMC Document 43 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 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

1

No party indicates that any opposition to defendant’s motion for consolidation has

been filed. Rather, according to plaintiffs, to the extent a dispute exists, the dispute

pertains to whether the consolidated proceedings should be conducted in this district or in

another district.

2

pending in the instant consolidated matter. Further, although the parties state that plaintiffs

herein have served discovery requests on defendant and noticed two Rule 30(b)(6)

depositions, defendant, in its reply, represents that plaintiffs have granted defendant a

“significant extension to respond to the discovery” and that the noticed depositions have

been “taken off calendar.” (See Def.’s Reply at 2:25-28.) Consequently, it is unclear what,

if any, proceeding or event is implicated by the instant motion to stay.

Moreover, given that the JPML will hear the question of consolidation within the

week, and it is anticipated by both parties that consolidation will be ordered,1 it would

appear that the requested stay will be of relatively short duration.

Accordingly, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.

The Case Management Conference remains as scheduled for May 2, 2008. In the

event the JPML has not issued a ruling by April 25, 2008, the date the parties’ Joint Case

Management Statement is due, the parties may submit a stipulation and a proposed order

to continue the Case Management Conference to an appropriate date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04309-MMC Document 43 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2