Banks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-08745
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Banks v. Wells Fargo, Judge Gilliam stayed the action pending the Supreme Court’s Duguid decision and extended Wells Fargo’s response deadline.
Jeffrey L. Banks and Wells Fargo, N.A.; the case schedule and Wells Fargo’s deadline to respond were affected.
What happened
Jeffrey L. Banks v. Wells Fargo, N.A. was stayed after the court reviewed the parties’ agreement and found good cause for the delay.
The stay will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. The parties must file a joint status report within 48 hours after that decision, and Wells Fargo’s deadline to respond to the complaint was extended until two weeks after that filing.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the stay and schedule changes and directed the court to set a case-management conference after receiving the status report.
The detailed version
- Banks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:20-cv-08745
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 2, 2021
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ stipulation to stay the action and continue the case deadlines. It found good cause to enter the requested order, as modified. The order does not describe the underlying claims in the complaint.
Rulings and deadlines
The court stayed the action until the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. The parties were directed to submit a joint status report within 48 hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. The report was to attach the decision and contain no legal or factual argument or characterization.
The court stated that it would set a case-management conference after receiving the status report. It also extended Wells Fargo’s deadline to respond to the complaint until two weeks after the parties submitted notice that the Supreme Court had issued its opinion.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the action stayed and the dates continued as specified. The order did not enter judgment or decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.