Noble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 50

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/24/16 ORDERING that the deadline for defendants Harris and Hubbell to respond to the First Amended Complaint is EXTENDED to 3/14/2016. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
SCOTT M. HARRIS 1 351 St. Mary Street Pleasanton, CA. 94566 2 Phone: 925-417-8700 Fax: 925-417-8708 3 E-Mail: scott.harris@hrhlawoffices.com 4 Pro Per 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 Brooke Noble, Case No. 1:14-CV-01963-TLN-EPG 9 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANT SCOTT HARRIS’ REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiff, vs. 11 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and DOES 150, inclusive., 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 Date: Time: Ctrm: No Hearing Scheduled No Hearing Scheduled 10, 6th Floor 2500 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721 Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley 16 17 Plaintiff and Defendants SCOTT HARRIS (“HARRIS”), MARLENE 18 HUBBELL (“HUBBELL”) hereby stipulate as follows: 19 20 1) Plaintiff hereby agrees to extend Defendants, HARRIS and HUBBELL, 21 requests to extend HARRIS’s and HUBBELL’s deadline to respond to the First 22 Amended Complaint to March 14, 2016. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO Plaintiffs First Amended COMPLAINT 1 2) HARRIS and HUBBELL agree that any responsive pleading filed, which 2 requires the setting of a court date, said court date will not be set to a date which 3 would require Plaintiff to file an opposition prior to May 15, 2016. 4 5 Dated: February 05, 2016 By: /s/ Scott Harris Pro Per Defendant. By: /s/ Marlene Hubbell Pro Per Defendant. By: /s/ Lenore Albert Attorney for Plaintiff. 6 7 8 Dated: February 05, 2016 9 10 11 Dated: February 05, 2016 12 13 14 15 Dated: February 24, 2016 16 17 18 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO Plaintiffs First Amended COMPLAINT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?