Jang et al v. 1st United Bank et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/12 ORDERING that the hearing on 12 MOTION to DISMISS is CONTINUED from 2/8/12 to 5/2/2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 W. AUSTIN COOPER, A P ROFESSIONAL C ORPORATION W. AUSTIN COOPER, #030652 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 320 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 927-2525 Facsimile: (916) 920-0355 austincooperlaw@yahoo.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Kwang Jang and Amy Jang, both individuals 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Sacramento Division) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) 1st UNITED BANK, formerly Republic Federal Bank, N.A., formerly Hemisphere National Bank; ) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ) ) SYSTEMS, INC.; CAL-WESTERN ) RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, a ) California corporation; FIRST AMERICAN ) TITLE; U.S. BANK, N.A., as trustee for the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1AR; ) ) ALL PERSONS KNOWN OR UNKNOWN ) CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN 840 ) WEDGEWOOD COURT, WEST ) SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95605; and ) DOES 1-20, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KWANG JANG and AMY JANG, both individuals; 1 Case No. 2:11-cv-02427-JAM-GGH ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, good cause appearing therefore, the Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, dated January 18, 2012, is hereby approved by the Court and the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, originally set for February 8, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6, is hereby continued to May 2, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6. DATED: 2/2/2012 7 8 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?