Barbara Waldrup v. Countrywide Financial Corporation
2:13-cv-08833
C.D. Cal.Nov 14, 2016Background
- Waldrup filed a nationwide class action (TAC) against Countrywide, Bank of America, Landsafe, and others alleging RICO, UCL, fraud, and unjust enrichment based on appraisals provided to Countrywide loan borrowers (class period 2003–2008).
- Williams plaintiffs filed a separate but related nationwide class complaint with identical class definitions and many copied allegations; Williams adds RESPA and Florida FDUTPA claims and California/Florida subclasses.
- The district judge related Williams to Waldrup and then considered (1) Waldrup’s motion to consolidate the two actions for pretrial purposes and (2) defendants’ motion to stay Williams pending resolution of Waldrup’s class-certification motion.
- Parties agreed the cases involve common questions of law and fact; defendants opposed consolidation arguing it would delay class-certification briefing, increase discovery burdens, raise due-process concerns, and that Williams added claims that should be resolved only if Waldrup’s class survives.
- The court found consolidation would promote judicial economy, that consolidation does not affect substantive rights or defenses, and denied the stay as moot. Cases consolidated for pretrial purposes only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to consolidate Waldrup and Williams under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) | Consolidation serves judicial economy; avoids duplicative discovery and repeated class-certification proceedings | Consolidation would delay class-certification ruling, impose additional discovery burdens, and complicate defenses | Granted: consolidated for pretrial purposes only; economy outweighs delay |
| Whether to stay Williams pending resolution of Waldrup class certification | Stay is inefficient; if Waldrup class is certified, relitigation and re-noticing would be wasteful | A stay would avoid duplication and discovery burdens and is appropriate until class-certification decision | Denied as moot (because consolidation granted) |
| Whether consolidation would prejudice defendants’ procedural rights (e.g., Rule 9/12 defenses) | Consolidation does not alter any party’s substantive rights or defenses | Concern that consolidation could limit ability to challenge new pleading or invoke procedural defenses | Court: consolidation does not divest defendants of rights to assert defenses; preserves Rule 9/12 challenges |
| Scope of additional discovery arising from Williams’ extra claims (RESPA/FDUTPA) | Any added discovery is preferable to entirely separate proceedings; overlapping facts mean discovery largely duplicative | Additional discovery burdens are unnecessary; some claims subsumed by Waldrup’s allegations | Court declined to broadly preclude additional discovery but limited scope to loan/appraisal-related matters where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Investors Research Co. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion to consolidate under Rule 42)
- Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703 (9th Cir.) (weigh savings from consolidation against inconvenience, delay, or prejudice)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (court may stay proceedings to control its docket and ensure fairness when related proceedings exist)
- Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.) (stays may be appropriate pending resolution of independent proceedings that bear on the case)
- Dependable Highway Express v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.) (a stay is inappropriate if it may damage others absent a showing of hardship or inequity)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (defending a suit, without more, is not sufficient hardship to justify a stay)
- J. G. Link & Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 470 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir.) (consolidation does not affect the substantive rights of the parties)