Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TY Rayner v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, 15-cv-01384-RMW. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150505a86 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 04, 2015
Latest Update: May 04, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [] ORDER TO STAY ACTION CLASS ACTION RONALD M. WHYTE , District Judge . Plaintiff Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff") and Defendants E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC ("Defendants," together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), by and through their counsel, enter into the following stipulation to stay this action: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 25, 2015; and WHEREAS, the following cases (which were
More

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER TO STAY ACTION

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff") and Defendants E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC ("Defendants," together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), by and through their counsel, enter into the following stipulation to stay this action:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 25, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the following cases (which were brought by different plaintiffs against different defendants than the Parties) contain allegations with respect to payment for order flow: Zola v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., 8:14-cv-288; Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., 8:14-cv-289; Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., D. Neb., 8:14-cv-325; Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation; D. Neb., 8:14-cv-341; Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., S.D. Cal. 3:14-cv-02926 (collectively, the "PFOF Actions"); and

WHEREAS, motions to dismiss are pending in each of the PFOF Actions; and

WHEREAS, neither Party will be prejudiced by a stay pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in the PFOF Actions:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that this action shall be stayed until decisions on the motions to dismiss are entered in each of the PFOF Actions. Defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint during the pendency of the motions to dismiss in the PFOF Actions. Defendants will have 20 days to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint following the issuance of decisions on the motions to dismiss in the PFOF Actions. The Parties shall jointly advise the Court of the issuance of decisions on the motions to dismiss in the PFOF Actions within 5 days of the written decisions.

In light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference currently set for July 14, 2015, be vacated until the stay is lifted.

[Proposed] Order

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation between the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer