United States District Court, E.D. California
suit for violations of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
defendants move for a stay pending resolution of a similar
case on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For
the following reasons, the court DENIES Wells Fargo's
the City of Sacramento, brings this suit against defendants,
Wells Fargo Bank & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
alleging violations of the FHA and the FEHA. Specifically,
plaintiff alleges that, since at least 2004, Wells Fargo has
maintained a pattern and practice of discriminatory lending
in Sacramento that constitutes redlining and reverse
redlining. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 9-11. The
City alleges Wells Fargo's conduct amounts to both
intentional discrimination and disparate impact
discrimination, and that both redlining and reverse redlining
violate the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.
Id. ¶¶ 8, 11; see 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3604(b), 3605(a).
seeks relief for its noneconomic and economic injuries under
the FHA and the FEHA, Cal. Gov't Code § 12900, et
Id. ¶¶ 157-181. Among its noneconomic
injuries, plaintiff alleges its policy goal of enabling
“any person to choose where to live in the City”
has been adversely affected, as have the “social and
professional benefits of living in an integrated
society.” Id. ¶ 114. To that end, the
City's efforts “to encourage racial and economic
integration, fair housing, and the elimination of
discrimination, ” which the City has pursued through
its agencies, coordination with local nonprofits and grant
programs and commissions, have been harmed. Id.
¶¶ 115-119. The City's alleged economic
injuries include (a) the decreased value of foreclosed
properties and (b) the decreased value of properties
surrounding foreclosed properties, both of which reduce the
City's property tax revenues. Id. ¶¶
120, 122-140. The City seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages. Id. at 52 (prayer for relief).
similar case brought by the City of Oakland in the Northern
District, the district court has certified an interlocutory
appeal to address two questions also relevant to this case:
(1) Do Oakland's claims for damages based on the injuries
asserted in the [complaint] satisfy on a motion to dismiss
proximate cause required by the FHA?
(2) Is the proximate-cause requirement articulated in
City of Miami limited to claims for damages under
the FHA and not to claims for injunctive or declaratory
of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
15-CV-04321-EMC, 2018 WL 7575537, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5,
2018), on appeal, No. 19-15169. The appeal is
currently pending. See Docket, City of
Oakland, No. 19-15169.
order on defendant's motion to dismiss, this court
addressed the same issues, but acknowledged the pending
“appeal concerning the same issues decided here, the
result of which will be binding on this court.” Order
on Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 36, at 22. The court ordered the
parties to meet and confer and notify the court as to whether
a stipulated stay is appropriate. Id. The parties
met and conferred, but plaintiff did not stipulate to a stay.
Mot. for Stay, ECF No. 37, at 5. Defendant now moves for a
stay until the Ninth Circuit issues its decision in City
of Oakland. Id. Plaintiff opposes, ECF No. 41,
and defendant has replied, ECF No. 42. Plaintiff also filed a
notice with the court when the Supreme Court denied the
City of Miami defendants' application for a stay
of mandate after the Eleventh Circuit's decision to allow
plaintiff's FHA claims in that case to proceed. Not., ECF
No. 47 (citing Docket, Bank of America Corp. v. City of
Miami, No. 19A429 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Oct. 30, 2019)).
district court has inherent power to control the disposition
of the cases on its docket in a manner to promote economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.
1962). The trial court may, “with propriety, find it is
efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the
parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
resolution of independent proceedings that bear upon the
case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal.,
Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). “This
rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial,
administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not
require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily
controlling of the action before the court.”
Id. The court's inherent power is discretionary.
CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
determining whether a stay is warranted, the court must weigh
the competing interests in granting or declining a motion to
stay. Id. Among the competing interests are (1)
“the possible damage that may result from the granting
of a stay, ” (2) “the hardship or inequity a
party may suffer in being required to go forward, ” and
(3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of
the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof and
questions of law expected to result from a stay.”
Id. at 268; see also Lockyer v. Mirant
Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting
CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268). Finally, “[t]he party
requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the
circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009) (citing
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997);
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)).
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
connection with their motion to stay, defendants request the
court judicially notice six documents filed on public court
dockets. Req., ECF No. 38, at 2; Ex. A (First Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 104, City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., et al., No. 15-CV-04321-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug.
15, 2017)); Ex. B (Order Granting Permission to Appeal, ECF
No. 4, Wells Fargo & Company, et al. v. City of
Oakland v., No. 18-80116 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017)); Ex.
C (Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b), ECF No. 1, Wells Fargo & Co., et al.,
v. City of Oakland, No. 18-80116 (9th Cir. Sept. 17,
2018)); Ex. D (Minute Entry of Proceedings, ECF No. 175,
City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.,
No. 15-CV-04321-EMC (N.D. Cal. March 7, 2019)); Ex. E
(Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending
Appeal of Related Action, ECF No. 35., City of Miami
Gardens v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., No.
1:14-CV-22205 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2014)); Ex. F (Order
Granting Motion to Stay, ECF No. 38, City of Miami
Gardens v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., No.
1:14-CV-22205 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2014)). The request is
unopposed. Because the documents are filed on public court
dockets, the court takes judicial notice of the filings, but
not of the truth of their contents. See Reyn's Pasta
Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th