Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01428-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Valecea Diggs
Plaintiff
Verina Freeman
Plaintiff
Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C.
Defendant
Wilshire Consumer Credit
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

VERINA FREEMAN and VALECEA 

DIGGS, individually and on 

behalf of all similarly 

situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL 

L.L.C., a California limited 

liability company, dba 

WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT,

 Defendant.

CIV. NO. 2:15-1428 WBS AC

ORDER

----oo0oo----

This is a putative class action against defendant 

alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. A similar action is presently 

pending in the Southern District of California. Banarji v. 

Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC dba Wilshire Consumer Credit, 

Civ. No. 3:14-2967 BEN KSC (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 17, 2014)

(“Banarji”). On October 26, 2015, the parties agreed to stay all 

Case 2:15-cv-01428-WBS-AC Document 28 Filed 04/12/16 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

2

proceedings in this action, with the exception of certain limited 

discovery, pending the resolution of defendant’s dispositive 

motions in Banarji. (Oct. 30, 2015 Order (Docket No. 19).)

On April 11, 2016, this matter came on for a further 

scheduling conference to discuss the progress of the Banarji

action. (Docket No. 27.) Brian Kemnitzer appeared as counsel 

for plaintiffs and Steven Berardino appeared as counsel for 

defendant. Counsel informed the court that class certification 

was denied in Banarji and that an interlocutory appeal and motion 

to dismiss the appeal were presently pending before the Ninth 

Circuit. Counsel represented there is a high likelihood that the 

class claims in Banarji will be dismissed. Both parties agreed 

that, notwithstanding Banarji, the present action should proceed

in this district. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) the stay ordered in the court’s Order of October 

30, 2015 (Docket No. 19) is hereby LIFTED;

(2) a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set 

for July 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties shall 

meet and confer prior to that date; and

(3) the parties shall file an updated Joint Status 

Report containing the information set forth in this court’s 

initial Order of July 6, 2015 (Docket No 4) on or before July 5, 

2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01428-WBS-AC Document 28 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 2