From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melendez v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Bank of America Credit Prot. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litiga)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 21, 2011
MDL Docket No. 2269-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)

Opinion

MDL Docket No. 2269-TEH Case No. 3:11-cv-04575-TEH

10-21-2011

In re: BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT PROTECTION MARKETING & SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: BLANCHE MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; and FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. Defendants.

Eric I. Goldberg Patrick S. Thompson Michael J. Moloney III GOODWIN PROCTER LLP David L. Permut (admitted pro hac vice) Eric I. Goldberg (admitted pro hac vice) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, N.A., and FIA Card Services, N.A. Brian P. Murray Gregory Linkh Murray Frank LLP Brett H. Cebulash Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP Brian P. Murray Murray Frank LLP Kevin Sylvan Landau Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP Marc Lawrence Godino Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Steven A. Owings (pro hac vice) Owings Law Firm T. Brent Walker (pro hac vice) Carter Walker, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Blanche Melendez


Patrick S. Thompson (SBN 160804)

Michael J. Moloney III (SBN 259140)

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

David L. Permut (admitted pro hac vice)

Eric I. Goldberg (admitted pro hac vice)

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

Bank of America Corporation; Bank of

America, N.A., and FIA Card Services, N.A.

CLASS ACTION


STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO

PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT


Judge: The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., and FIA Card Services, N.A. (collectively, "Defendants") and plaintiff Blanche Melendez ("Plaintiff") stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about August 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed her complaint in Melendez v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-CV-5467 (the "Melendez action"), in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York;

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") made the Melendez action subject to a conditional transfer order to be coordinated in this Court with In re: Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-MD-2260 ("MDL action");

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011, the Melendez action was finally transferred and given the individual case number in this Court of 11-cv-04575-TEH;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Defendants' agreement to waive service on August 23, 2010, Defendants' response to Plaintiff's complaint is currently due on or before October 22, 2011;

WHEREAS, an initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") is scheduled in the MDL action on November 14, 2011;

WHEREAS, this Court's Order Setting the Case Management Conference stayed all discovery and denied without prejudice all currently pending motions with leave to re-file after the CMC (Dkt. 11 ¶ 11);

WHEREAS, Defendants' counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel on October 18, 2011 to discuss an extension of its deadline to respond to the Complaint until after the CMC;

WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred regarding Defendants' requested extension, and have agreed that good cause exists to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint as any motion or responsive pleading filed by Defendants prior to the CMC would be contrary to the spirit of the Court's CMC Order and potentially would waste the Court and the parties' resources. Thus, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Parties have agreed that Defendants' response to the Complaint should be due on a date determined at the CMC;

WHEREAS, no party will be prejudiced by this extension of time;

WHEREAS, the continuance will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by this Court;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, that Defendants' response to the Melendez Complaint will be due at a date to be determined at the MDL Case Management Conference.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

Eric I. Goldberg

Patrick S. Thompson

Michael J. Moloney III

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

David L. Permut (admitted pro hac vice)

Eric I. Goldberg (admitted pro hac vice)

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

Bank of America Corporation; Bank of

America, N.A., and FIA Card Services, N.A.

Brian P. Murray

Gregory Linkh

Murray Frank LLP

Brett H. Cebulash

Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP

Brian P. Murray

Murray Frank LLP

Kevin Sylvan Landau

Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP

Marc Lawrence Godino

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

Steven A. Owings (pro hac vice)

Owings Law Firm

T. Brent Walker (pro hac vice)

Carter Walker, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff Blanche Melendez

IT IS SO ODERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson


Summaries of

Melendez v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Bank of America Credit Prot. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litiga)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 21, 2011
MDL Docket No. 2269-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Melendez v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Bank of America Credit Prot. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litiga)

Case Details

Full title:In re: BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT PROTECTION MARKETING & SALES PRACTICES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 21, 2011

Citations

MDL Docket No. 2269-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011)