Judge Robert Sweet
Defendants moved to stay five related cases pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) on their centralization with 34 other cases assigned to defendants’ mortgage-backed securities multidistrict litigation. In weighing the private interests of and burdens upon the non-moving and moving parties, the court found the balance favored defendants in staying action. It reasoned that plaintiffs and their prosecution of their cases would not be prejudiced by a stay because all of the present cases, like the 34 other cases, were brought by investors and were based on allegations that defendants misrepresented to its investors origination practices for, and the credit quality of the mortgage loans that were originated between 2004 through 2007. The court stated that a stay would not likely prejudice or cause hardship to plaintiffs, as any delay therefrom would likely be brief. It also reasoned a stay would be appropriate due to the overlap between the legal and factual issues presented by the remand motions in the instant cases, and remand motions previously decided in the other cases. Thus the court found a stay would eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings and conserve judicial resources.
