Carrizosa

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STASSINOS’S MOTION TO ABATE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

On January 9, 2009, this court denied the parties cross motions for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs Richard Carrizosa (“Carrizosa”) and Mary Pea’s (“Pea”) motion for class certification because, although the class satisfied Rule 23’s requirements for certification, plaintiffs’ proposed class definition was too vague to be certified. Palmer v. Stassinos, 2009 WL 86705 , *9-11 (N.D.Cai.2009). Carrizosa and Pea now file an amended motion for class certification. Defendant Paul Stassinos (“Stassinos”) also moves to stay the proceeding pending the California Supreme Court’s determination of whether California law permits the charging of interest on dishonored checks. For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion for class certification and denies the motion to stay.

The factual and procedural background of this action is described in this court’s previous order denying the cross motions for summary judgment and the motion for class certification. Palmer, 2009 WL 86705 .

I. STASSINOS’S MOTION TO STAY

At issue in the present suit are multiple alleged…