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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITZIE PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND 

DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF; 

STAYING CLASS DISCOVERY IN 

PART

Before the Court is defendant's "Motion for Relief," filed December 27, 2018, by 

which motion defendant seeks an order vacating Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte's 

order of December 21, 2017, to the extent it allows class discovery "to proceed as to the 

following credit lines: . . . auto loans, personal loans, and certain mortgage loans." (See

Order, filed December 21, 2017, at 4:1-2.)

At the time said order was issued, the action was proceeding on the Second 

Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and defendant, on November 22, 2017, had moved to 

strike all class allegations, on the asserted ground that the class as defined was "failsafe." (See Def.'s Mot. to Strike, filed November 22, 2017, at 4:8.) In its Motion for 

Relief, defendant contends class discovery as to the above-listed lines of credit should 

not be allowed, on the ground that the class allegations are, as defendant asserted, 

based on a fail-safe class.

By order filed January 30, 2018, the Court found the class defined in the SAC was 

fail safe, granted defendant's motion to strike the class allegations, and afforded plaintiffs 

leave to amend. In the same order, the Court deferred ruling on the Motion for Relief 

until plaintiffs had filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") and the Court had resolved 
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

any motion to strike the class allegations included therein; additionally, pending resolution 

of any such motion, the Court granted defendant's motion to stay class discovery on the 

lines of credit challenged in the Motion for Relief.

Subsequent to said order: (1) plaintiffs filed their TAC in which they allege, on 

behalf of a putative class, claims based on the denials of applications for automobile 

loans, personal loans, and home mortgages; (2) defendants moved to strike the class 

allegations in the TAC; and (3) the Court, by order filed concurrently herewith, has 

stricken the references in the class definition to automobile loans and home mortgages, 

afforded plaintiffs leave to amend as to those two lines of credit, and otherwise denied 

the motion to strike.

Accordingly, the Court now considers the Motion for Relief and rules as follows:

1. To the extent the Motion for Relief challenges Magistrate Judge Laporte's order 

allowing class discovery on personal loans, the motion is hereby DENIED, as the motion 

to strike the class allegations pertaining to said line of credit has been denied.

2. To the extent the Motion for Relief challenges Magistrate Judge Laporte's order 

allowing class discovery on automobile loans and mortgages, the Court hereby DEFERS 

ruling thereon until after plaintiffs have filed any Fourth Amended Complaint and the 

Court has resolved any motion to strike the class allegations included therein.

3. Class discovery on automobile loans and mortgages remains STAYED pending 

resolution of the deferred portion of the Motion for Relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge