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)
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?