The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO CERTAIN DISMISSED OFFERINGS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)
On October 19, 2010, this Court issued an order dismissing claims relating to certain 18 mortgage-backed securities from this case, with prejudice, on the basis that they were not timely.
See October 19, 2010 Order (Dkt. No. 299) at 5-11. Specifically, the Court found that, in the 20 existing circumstances, a complaint alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs who were 21 without standing to bring those claims did not toll the statute of limitations for later assertions of 22 those claims. Id. The Ten Dismissed Offerings were the Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 23
2007-10, 2007-13, 2007-AR4, 2006-7, 2006-10, 2006-AR16, 2006-AR19, 2006-18, 2006-20 24
Trusts, and the Wells Fargo Alternative Loan 2007-PA1 Trust. On November 18, 2010, certain 25
Plaintiffs*fn1 in this putative class action (hereinafter, the "In re Wells Fargo" action) filed an 26 administrative motion for entry of final judgment as to these Ten Dismissed Offerings pursuant to 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), so that they may pursue an appeal of this dismissal. See 54(b) Motion (Dkt. 3
In addition to claims relating to the Ten Dismissed Offerings, the Order dismissed claims of 5 additional parties relating to a different Offering, the 2006-AR15 Trust. See October 19, 2010 6
"General Retirement," and dismissing claims brought in a separate action by First Star Bank). 8
Offerings were dismissed, namely, that the statute of limitations on these claims had not been 10 tolled by the assertion of claims ultimately dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene to assert claims relating to the 2006-AR15 Trust in the instant case was 13 denied. See First Star Bank v. Wells Fargo Mortg. Backed Sec. 2006-AR15 Trust ("First Star"), 14
No. 10-cv-3508 LHK, Dkt. No. 36.
Both First Star Bank and General Retirement have appealed 15 these rulings. See First Star action Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 37); In re Wells Fargo action 16
Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's 54(b) Motion, objecting that the motion was
18 not appropriate for briefing on an administrative motion schedule. Subsequently, the Court set an 19 abbreviated briefing schedule, and Defendants submitted a further opposition. See Suppl. Opp'n. 20
(Dkt. No. 322). The Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. No. 327. Based on the papers submitted, the Court 21 finds that it is appropriate to enter the dismissal of the Ten Dismissed Offerings as a final ...