You're viewing Docket Item 54 from the case Doral Bank Puerto Rico v. Washington Mutual Asset Acceptance Corporation et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27





HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BOILERMAKERS NATIONAL ANNUITY
TRUST FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated,


Plaintiff,



v.

WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AR1, et al.,


Defendants.



DORAL BANK PUERTO RICO, et al.,


Plaintiffs,


v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL ASSET
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et al.,


Defendants.

Case No. C09-0037MJP



ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE
BOILERMAKERS ACTION WITH
THE DORAL ACTION AND SETTING
DEADLINES TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT






Case No. C09-1557MJP





For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby CONSOLIDATES Boilermakers

National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, et al., No. C09-

0037MJP (the “Boilermakers action”) with Doral Bank Puerto Rico v. WaMu Asset

Acceptance Corp, et al., No. C09-1557MJP as related actions pending in this District.

ORDER CONSOLIDATING BOILERMAKERS AND DORAL
(NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 1




Background

On January 12, 2009, Boilermakers filed a class action complaint in this Court naming

a series of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trusts, certain trustees, individuals, and

several WaMu entities as Defendants. (No. C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 1.) The Boilermakers

Plaintiffs assert violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and

violations of Washington State securities laws. (No. C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 130.) The Court

stayed this matter pending completion of a statutory stay in New Orleans Employees’

Retirement System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan v. Washington

Mutual Bank, et al., No. C09-0134MJP (the “New Orleans I” action). After the conclusion of

the stay, the Court consolidated the Boilermakers action, New Orleans I action, and New

Orleans Employees’ Requirement System, et al. v. The First American Corp., et al., No. C09-

0137MJP (the “New Orleans II action”). (No. C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 70.) After

consolidation, the Court appointed Chicago PABF as lead plaintiff and approved its selection

of Scott + Scott LLP as lead counsel for the action. (No. C09-0037MJP , Dkt. Nos. 97, 99.)

Plaintiffs filed their most recent amended complaint on December 31, 2009 and Defendants

have filed motions to dismiss, but the parties have repeatedly moved for an extension of the

briefing deadlines in order to facilitate consolidation with the Doral Action. (See No. C09-

0037MJP , Dkt. Nos. 153, 156.)

On October 30, 2009, Doral filed a class action complaint that mirrored the allegations

in the Boilermakers action, but arose in connection with different securities. (No. C09-

1557MJP, Dkt. No. 1.) Both Chicago PABF and Doral retained Tousley Brain Stephens as

local counsel. On December 12, 2009, the Court denied Chicago PABF’s motion to

consolidate Boilermakers and Doral because no PSLRA notice had been issued in the Doral

action. (No. C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 118.) The Court denied the motion to consolidate

without prejudice to revisit the issue of consolidation after the requisite statutory notice period.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ORDER CONSOLIDATING BOILERMAKERS AND DORAL
(NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


In a separate Order issued yesterday, the Court granted Doral Bank’s motion for appointment

as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel.

Discussion

I. Consolidation

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), this Court can consolidate cases that “involve a common

question of law or fact.” A district court may sua sponte consolidate actions as part of its

broad discretion to manage its caseload. In re Adams Apple, 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.

1987); see also Devlin v. Transp. Commc’ns. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999).

In their stipulations regarding the briefing schedule in the Boilermakers action, the parties have

indicated there are common questions of law and fact in Boilermakers and Doral. (See No.

C09-0037MJP, Dkt. Nos. 153, 156.) In a telephonic conference with the parties in the

Boilermakers action on March 18, 2010, no party raised an objection to the Court’s suggestion

these matters should be consolidated. (No. C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 160.) Likewise, during

oral argument on the motions for appointment of lead plaintiff in the Doral action, no party

expressed an objection to consolidation. (No. C09-1557MJP, Dkt. No. 51.) The Court

therefore finds consolidation is appropriate.

II.

Further Proceedings

In light of the significant delays that have hindered the progress of this case to date, the

Court will not entertain an extended briefing schedule on any motions filed by Defendants.

Plaintiffs in Doral and Boilermakers must file a single consolidated amended complaint within

seven days of this Order. Defendants must either file answers or motions to dismiss no later

than 30 days after Plaintiffs file their complaint. The parties shall note the motions for

consideration under the timeline contemplated by Local Rule 7(d)(3). The WaMu Defendants

and the Rating Agencies may file omnibus motions to dismiss as set forth in the Court’s

previous Orders. (Dkt. Nos. 118, 137.)

ORDER CONSOLIDATING BOILERMAKERS AND DORAL
(NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 3




Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss address a complaint that will soon be

inoperative. (C09-0037MJP, Dkt. Nos. 138, 144, 146.) The Court finds these motions moot at

this time, even though Defendants may raise identical arguments in addressing Plaintiffs

forthcoming complaint. The Court further finds as moot Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

the complaint. (C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 152.) The parties need not file a joint status report

until the Court rules on any motion to dismiss.

Conclusion

Because Boilermakers and Doral involve common questions of fact, the Court

CONSOLIDATES both into a single action under the case number C09-0037MJP. All future

filings should be entered under the Boilermakers case number: C09-0037MJP. The Court

further directs Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within seven days of this

Order. The Court finds as moot Defendants’ motions to dismiss (C09-0037MJP, Dkt. Nos.

138, 144, 146) and Plaintiff’s motion for leave (C09-0037MJP, Dkt. No. 152.) The Court

directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this 25th day of March, 2010.



A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge


















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ORDER CONSOLIDATING BOILERMAKERS AND DORAL
(NO. 2:09-CV-0037-MJP) - 4