IN RE WELLS FARGO WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, H-11-2266. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20140423d56
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court is a motion to reconsider filed by the lead plaintiffs in Chan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (the " Chan Plaintiffs"). Dkt. 241. Defendants Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo & Co, Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo Mortgage Inc., and World Mortgage Company have filed a letter response in which they request that the court summarily deny the motion because it merely rehashes old arguments or advan
Summary: ORDER GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court is a motion to reconsider filed by the lead plaintiffs in Chan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (the " Chan Plaintiffs"). Dkt. 241. Defendants Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo & Co, Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo Mortgage Inc., and World Mortgage Company have filed a letter response in which they request that the court summarily deny the motion because it merely rehashes old arguments or advanc..
More
ORDER
GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge.
Pending before the court is a motion to reconsider filed by the lead plaintiffs in Chan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (the "Chan Plaintiffs"). Dkt. 241. Defendants Wachovia Corporation, Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, Wells Fargo & Co, Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo Mortgage Inc., and World Mortgage Company have filed a letter response in which they request that the court summarily deny the motion because it merely rehashes old arguments or advances theories that could have been presented earlier. Dkt. 242. The Chan Plaintiffs filed a letter reply in which they assert that the truncated schedule and late filing of settlement approval papers caused them to have insufficient time to review and fully develop their objections or file a reply prior to the hearing for the approval of the settlement. Dkt. 243. The court has reviewed the motion to reconsider and finds a that a summary denial is not appropriate. Accordingly, the court ORDERS defendants and lead counsel for the plaintiffs to fully respond to the arguments raised in the motion to reconsider on or before the motion docket date of May 5, 2014. The court will rule on the motion as soon as practical thereafter. The court understands this may impact the date the MDL Panel has chosen for remand, and the court thus ORDERS the clerk to provide the MDL Panel with a copy of this order forthwith.
Source: Leagle
