Yang et al v. Sun Trust Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 61

STIPULATION and ORDER for continuance of mandatory scheduling conference and related dates. The Scheduling Conference currently set for 11/15/2011, is CONTINUED to 1/10/2012, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The parties joint scheduling report is due 1/3/2012. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/27/2011. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4

JOHN B. SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 96742)
AUSTIN B. KENNEY (State Bar No. 242277)
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
erroneously sued herein as SUN TRUST
MORTGAGE, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

10
11 CHANG BEE YANG, an individual; and LAU
YANG, an individual,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
vs.
14
SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a Virginia
15 corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND
RELATED DATES
Hearing Date: November 15, 2011
Time: 9:45 a.m.
Dept.: 8
Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
11950/0069/983738.1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO

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

TO THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiffs, CHANG BEE YANG and LAU YANG (“Plaintiffs”), and defendant,
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. (“SunTrust”), erroneously sued herein as SUN TRUST
MORTGAGE, INC., hereby stipulate to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently
scheduled for November 15, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. until such time as this case is at issue. The parties
also stipulate to continue all related dates specified by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26,
to coincide with the new conference date.
On September 27, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue the scheduling
conference set for October 13, 2011, to January 10, 2012 in light of the fact that the case was not
yet at issue. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiffs previously filed a Third Amended Complaint, but SunTrust was
not due to respond until October 12. This Court determined that it was “premature” to continue
the scheduling conference until January, particularly in light of the fact that this case has been
pending for over a year. (Doc. 56.) Instead, the Court granted a continuance to November 15
“[t]o allow sufficient time for SunTrust to file a responsive pleading” to the operative complaint.”
(Ibid.) The Court advised, “Should the need arise for an additional continuance of the scheduling
conference, the parties may request one at that time. Such a request should set for reasons for any
continuance sought.” (Ibid.)
The parties believe there is good cause to continue the scheduling conference because the
case is still not at issue. SunTrust filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint on October 12, and that motion will not be heard until November 21, after the date set
for the scheduling conference.
The parties have already exchanged Initial Disclosure Statements and submitted a Joint
Scheduling Report and discovery plan to the Court. However, some of dates in the report may
need to be changed (or eliminated entirely) based on the disposition of SunTrust’s pending
motion. If the motion is denied, SunTrust will likely file a summary judgment motion, and the
Court and the parties will need to schedule. On the other hand, if the motion is granted with leave
to amend, the case will still not be at issue.

28
11950/0069/983738.1

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The parties respectfully submit it would not be effective use of their or the Court’s time
and resources to hold a scheduling conference before the pleadings have been resolved. Once the
pleadings are resolved, the parties will be in a better position to confer and agree upon
scheduling, ADR and related case management issues.
Thus, the parties respectfully request that the scheduling conference be continued until
such time as SunTrust’s pending motion is decided and the pleadings are resolved (if SunTrust’s
motion is denied in any respect). The parties can be available on January 10, 2012, or on another
mutually-agreeable date thereafter.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10
11

Dated: 10/26/11

12
13

SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation

/s/ Austin B. Kenney
BY:_______________________________________
John B. Sullivan, Esq.
Austin B. Kenney, Esq.

14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendants
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., erroneously
sued herein as SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC.

17
18
19
20

Dated: October 26, 2011

WEBB & WALTON, LLP

21
/s/ Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton
BY:_______________________________________
Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton, Esq.

22
23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHANG BEE YANG and LAU YANG

24
25
26
27
28
11950/0069/983738.1

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO

1
2
3
4

ORDER
Based on the Stipulation of the Parties and for Good Cause Shown, it is Hereby Ordered
that the Scheduling Conference in this matter currently scheduled for November 15, 2011, is
continued to January 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 27, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
DEAC_Signature-END:

10

ie14hje

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11950/0069/983738.1

-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; Case No.: 1:10-cv-01541-AWI-SKO