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 GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO STRIKE; AFFORDING 

PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND; 

DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY 

ORDERS; GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY RELATED DISCOVERY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION 

FOR RELIEF; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court are three motions filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: 

(1) "Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint" ("Motion to Strike"), 

filed November 22, 2017; (2) "Motion for Relief from the December 15, 2017 and 

December 21, 2017 Discovery Orders of the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte Regarding 

Scope of Discovery and Organizational Charts" ("Motion for Relief"), filed December 27, 

2017; and (3) "Motion to Stay Related Discovery Pending Final Disposition of Wells 

Fargo's Motion for Relief from the December 15, 2017 Discovery Order of the Honorable 

Elizabeth D. Laporte" ("Motion to Stay"), filed December 27, 2017. 1 The Court, having 

read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, 

deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for 

February 2, 2018, and rules as follows. 

// 

 1

The parties' respective administrative motions to seal specified exhibits, filed in 

connection therewith, will be addressed by separate order. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 151 Filed 01/30/18 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 

 For the reasons stated by defendant in the Motion to Strike, the Court finds the 

proposed class definition set forth in the Second Amended Complaint is a fail-safe class. 

(See Def.'s Mot. to Strike, filed November 22, 2017, at 4:8 - 6:11.) Accordingly, the 

Motion to Strike is hereby GRANTED and plaintiffs' class allegations are hereby 

STRICKEN.2 Plaintiffs are hereby afforded leave to amend for purposes of redefining the 

proposed class; any Third Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than February 16, 

2018. 

 As plaintiffs have been given leave to amend to redefine the proposed class, the 

Court finds it appropriate to defer ruling on the Motion for Relief, by which defendant 

seeks an order vacating Magistrate Judge Laporte's order requiring defendant to provide 

discovery as to matters relating solely to putative class members. Accordingly, the Court 

hereby DEFERS ruling on the Motion for Relief until after plaintiffs have filed a Third 

Amended Complaint and the Court has resolved any motion to strike the class allegations 

alleged therein. 

 Lastly, defendant's Motion to Stay, by which defendant seeks an order staying the 

above-referenced discovery pending resolution of the Motion for Relief, is hereby 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2018 

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 United States District Judge 

 2

In light of the Court's order striking the class allegations, the Court does not 

address herein defendant's additional argument that plaintiffs' individual claims are not 

typical of those of the proposed class as presently alleged. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 151 Filed 01/30/18 Page 2 of 2