LORRAINE v. WALLIN

Case No. 3:16-cv-00409-MMD-WGC.

CONSTANCE LORRAINE, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN L. WALLIN, et. al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Truth in Lending
Nature of Suit: 370 Fraud
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Constance Lorraine, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Norman L. Wallin, Defendant, represented by Michael C. Lehners , Law Office of Michael Lehners.

Kevin Sheppard, Defendant, Pro Se.

Aaron M. Waite, Defendant, represented by Aaron M. Waite , Weinstein & Riley, PS.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron M. Waite , Weinstein & Riley, PS.


ORDER

WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.

On March 8, 2017, the court issued an order screening Plaintiff's amended complaint, concluding that she could proceed with State law claims for conversion (against Sheppard, Wallin, Fiat of Reno), deceptive trade practices (Wallin, Sheppard, Fiat of Reno), fraudulent inducement (Wallin, Sheppard, Fiat of Reno), fraud (Wallin, Sheppard, Fiat of Reno), financial elder abuse (Wallin, Sheppard, Fiat of Reno), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Santander Consumer USA Inc., dba Chrysler Capital (Santander). Plaintiff was granted leave to amend with respect to the federal claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the IIED claim(s) (as to Wallin, Sheppard, Fiat of Reno). (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff was given thirty days to file a second amended complaint which cures the deficiencies with respect to the TILA, ECOA and IIED claims outlined in the order. (Id.) The court advised it would address jurisdiction when Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, or when the time to do so has expired. (Id.) The court concurrently referred the case to the pro bono program. (ECF No. 52.)

On March 15, 2017 Norman L. Wallin filed a motion that in essence seeks a stay for filing a responsive pleading until such time as a second amended complaint is filed or the time expires for Plaintiff to do so, so that Wallin will only have to respond to the operative pleading. The court finds that good cause exists to GRANT Wallin's motion. The court hereby STAYS the obligation of all Defendants to file a responsive pleading. When the thirty-day time period for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint expires, the court will issue an order which will either address the second amended complaint, or discuss jurisdiction if no second amended complaint is filed. Assuming the court retains jurisdiction, the order will also address the responsive pleading deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases