United States District Court, D. Hawaii
BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs,
LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and DOES 1-15, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFFS TO PRESENT A TRIAL PLAN
C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant Lloyds
TSB Bank plc’s (now known as Lloyds Bank plc)
(“Lloyds” or “Defendant”) Motion to
Compel Plaintiffs to Present a Trial Plan
(“Motion”). ECF No. 444.
instant case involves the issuance by Lloyds of certain dual
currency loans, also referred to as International Mortgage
System (“IMS”) loans. The Court and the parties
are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural
history of this case, and the Court will not repeat it here
except as necessary.
March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint (“TAC”). ECF No. 100. The TAC names
Frank Dominick, Michele Sherie Dominick, and Bradley Willcox
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) as class
representatives and brings claims against Lloyds for Breach
of Contract (Count I) and Breach of an Implied Term Limiting
Lloyds’ Discretion to Change the Interest Rate (Count
II). Id. ¶¶ 6-8, 55-72.
in this case is set to commence on October 18, 2016, with
jury selection to be held on October 13, 2016. ECF No. 438.
Class Certification and Rule 23(f) Petition
15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ECF No. 156.
After briefing and oral argument from the parties, Magistrate
Judge Puglisi issued his Findings and Recommendation to Grant
in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification (“F&R”) on November 12, 2015.
ECF No. 317. The F&R recommended: (1) certifying the
instant case as a class action; (2) appointing Willcox (but
not the Dominicks) as class representative; (3) appointing
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and Steptoe & Johnson LLP as
class counsel; (4) directing the parties to meet and confer
regarding notice to class members; (5) denying any remaining
relief requested in Plaintiffs’ class certification
motion; and (6) defining the certified class as:
All persons and entities who entered prior to August 2009
into an IMS loan with Lloyds that contained a Hong Kong
choice-of-law provision and an interest rate provision based
upon Cost of Funds and who are, or were at any time during
entering into such an IMS loan, residents or citizens of the
State of Hawaii, or owners of property in Hawaii that was
mortgaged to secure any such IMS loan.
Id. at 31-32. Lloyds filed objections to the F&R
on November 25, 2015, ECF No. 332, to which Plaintiffs filed
a Response on December 9, 2015, ECF No. 335. The parties also
submitted supplemental Reply and Sur-Reply briefs on December
17, 2015 and December 28, 2015, respectively. ECF Nos. 337,
January 8, 2016, the Court issued an Order Adopting in Part,
Rejecting in Part, and Modifying in Part the Findings and
Recommendations to Grant in Part and Deny in Part
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(“Class Certification Order”). ECF No. 366. For
the reasons explained therein, the Court adopted the F&R
over Lloyds’ objections, except as to the class
definition, which the Court modified to include only
plaintiffs of United States and Canadian citizenship.
January 22, 2016, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), Lloyds filed with the Ninth Circuit a Petition for
Permission to Appeal the Class Certification Order
(“Rule 23(f) Petition”). ECF No. 397. Plaintiffs
filed an Opposition to the Rule 23(f) Petition on February 1,
2016. 9th Cir., No. 16-80009, ECF No. 4. On May 16, 2016, the
Ninth Circuit issued its Order denying the Rule 23(f)
Petition. ECF No. 430.
Motion to Compel Trial Plan
13, 2016, Lloyds filed the instant Motion asking the Court to
issue an order requiring Plaintiffs “to present a trial
plan illustrating the expected course of proceedings at trial
and showing that the requirements for maintaining ...