Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Willcox v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 15, 2016

BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs,
v.
LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and DOES 1-15, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO PRESENT A TRIAL PLAN

          Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge

         For the 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.

         BACKGROUND

         The 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.

         On 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.

         Trial in this case is set to commence on October 18, 2016, with jury selection to be held on October 13, 2016. ECF No. 438.

         I. Class Certification and Rule 23(f) Petition

         On July 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, 340.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         II. Motion to Compel Trial Plan

         On July 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.