Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01993/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01993-56/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

RAINBOW BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, doing 

business as PRECISION TUNE AUTO 

CARE; DIETZ TOWING, INC.; THE 

ROSE DRESS, INC.; VOLKER VON 

GLASENAPP; JERRY SU; VERENA 

BAUMGARTNER; TERRY JORDAN; ERIN 

CAMPBELL; and LEWIS BAE, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

MERCHANT SERVICES, INC.; NATIONAL 

PAYMENT PROCESSING; UNIVERSAL 

MERCHANT SERVICES LLC; UNIVERSAL 

CARD, INC.; JASON MOORE; NATHAN 

JURCZYK; ROBERT PARISI; ERIC 

MADURA; FIONA WALSHE; ALICYN ROY; 

MBF LEASING LLC; NORTHERN 

FUNDING, LLC; NORTHERN LEASING 

SYSTEMS, INC.; JAY COHEN; LEONARD 

MEZEI; SARA KRIEGER; SAM BUONO; 

and SKS ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 10-1993 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO LIFT THE STAY 

(Docket No. 650) 

 On July 22, 2014, this Court granted the parties’ stipulation 

to stay this case pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of 

Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s class certification orders. 

The stipulation provided that either party could petition the 

Court to lift the stay for good cause. Plaintiffs now move to 

lift the stay so they may file a petition for an interim fee 

award. Defendants oppose the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a 

reply. 

 Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees 

for work performed to secure a preliminary injunction prohibiting 

Defendant SKS Associates from collecting money based on expired 

Case 4:10-cv-01993-CW Document 656 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

lease agreements. The preliminary injunction was entered on June 

13, 2011. SKS Associates appealed the preliminary injunction and, 

on March 22, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In its memorandum 

disposition, the Ninth Circuit specifically stated that it 

affirmed the preliminary injunction “on the understanding that the 

district court will review the continued existence and the scope 

of the preliminary injunction, if and when a class is certified.” 

Docket No. 352 at 3. 

 Plaintiffs assert that a February 28, 2013 consent decree 

between Defendants and the New York State Attorney General 

permanently enjoins the behavior prohibited by the preliminary 

injunction in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue, the 

preliminary injunction is moot, they are necessarily the 

prevailing party as to the issues in the preliminary injunction, 

nothing in the pending appeal will impact the analysis with 

respect to their entitlement to fees, and they are entitled to 

seek an interim fee award. Plaintiffs further argue that good 

cause exists to lift the stay because an interim fee award will 

assist it in continuing to seek money damages on behalf of the 

same individuals protected by the injunction. 

 Defendants counter that one of the issues on appeal is the 

certification of the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class to bring 

claims for injunctive relief and money damages based on the 

alleged behavior prohibited by the preliminary injunction. 

Defendants argue that, even if the claim for injunctive relief, 

and therefore the preliminary injunction, is mooted by the New 

York consent decree, whether the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class 

is decertified should be considered in determining the 

Case 4:10-cv-01993-CW Document 656 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

reasonableness of fees expended to seek a preliminary injunction 

on behalf of the class. 

 Assuming without deciding that Plaintiffs’ claim for 

injunctive relief against Defendant SKS Associates is moot and the 

question of whether Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for 

work towards obtaining the preliminary injunction is ripe for 

decision, the Court finds that the question of the amount of fees 

attributable to that work is intertwined with Plaintiffs’ 

potential claim for attorneys’ fees for work on other pending 

claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to lift the stay for the 

limited purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to file an interim fee 

request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 5, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-01993-CW Document 656 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3