Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING as to 14 MOTION to DISMISS HEARING from 5/17/2017 to 5/24/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/24/2017. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY 2 Clark Ovruchesky, Esq. (SBN: 301844) co@colawcalifornia.com 3 750 B. Street, Suite 3300 4 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 356-8960 5 Facsimile: (619) 330-7610 6 LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN A. HOOVER 7 Stephan A. Hoover, Esq. (SBN: 299790) 8 Stephan@hooverlawsd.com P.O. Box 723 9 Telephone: (760) 707-3453 10 Facsimile: (760) 687-0013 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 12 Rachel K. Ruiz 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RACHEL K. RUIZ, Plaintiff, 16 17 Case No. 1:17-CV-00323-LJO-SAB STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING vs. 18 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, 19 VALLEY FIRST CREDIT UNION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION 20 SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION LLC, and EQUIFAX INFORMATION 21 SERVICES, LLC, 22 Defendants. 23 24 Plaintiff Rachel K. Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 25 (“WFBNA”) hereby stipulate as follows: 26 WHEREAS, WFBNA filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on April 27 11, 2017 and a Motion Hearing was set for May 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5 28 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; –1– WHEREAS, on April 13, 2017 this case was reassigned to Chief Judge 1 2 Lawrence J. O’Neill and Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone; WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017 WFBNA’s pending Motion to Dismiss 3 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint was referred by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to Magistrate 5 Judge Stanley A. Boone for the preparation of findings and recommendations; WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017 the Court reset the Motion Hearing as to 6 7 WFBNA’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for May 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM in 8 Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone; WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel Clark Ovruchesky has a trial conflict from May 9 th th 10 15 to potentially May 17 in Los Angeles Superior Court and a settlement th 11 conference conflict on May 17 in the Southern District of California (San Diego); 12 WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel Stephan Hoover has a family medical matter th 13 conflict on May 17 in San Diego; 14 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and WFBNA are currently engaged in settlement 15 discussions and believe that a short continuance would also allow the parties to 16 continue to explore early resolution of this action; 17 WHEREAS, this request is not made for any delay or improper purpose; 18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff and WFBNA hereby request that the currently 19 scheduled Motion to Dismiss hearing be continued from May 17, 2017 to May 24, 20 May 25, or May 26 and the motion filing deadlines related to WFBNA’s Motion to 21 Dismiss be adjusted accordingly. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// –2– IT IS SO STIPULATED. 1 2 3 DATED: April 24, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY. 4 By /s/ Clark Ovruchesky1 Clark Ovruchesky Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel K. Ruiz 5 6 7 8 9 DATED: April 24, 2017 SEVERSON & WERSON 10 By /s/ Laszlo Ladi (as authorized 4-24-17) Laszlo Ladi Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 11 12 13 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the hearing for 14 15 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint currently set for 16 May 17, 2017 is continued to May 24, 2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) 17 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone and the motion filing deadlines related to 18 WFBNA’s Motion to Dismiss are adjusted accordingly. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 24, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 131(e), filing counsel attests that all other signatories listed hereon and on whose behalf this filing is submitted concur in the 28 filing’s content and have authorized the filing. 1 –3–

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?