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)
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?