Fifth Third Bank v. Scheibli

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 6/26/2012 ORDERING 19 that Plaintiff is permitted leave to continue its efforts to serve Defendant Inderjit Grewal. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

Jordan T.L. Peters
Peters Law, Inc.
915 Highland Pointe Dr.
Suite 250
Roseville, CA. 95678
916.434.6740
916.434.6741 – facsimile
[e-mail]

8

Geoffrey J. Moul (admitted pro hac vice)
Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
1533 Lake Shore Drive
Columbus, OH 43204
614.488.0400
614.488.0401 – facsimile
[e-mail]

9

Counsel for Plaintiff

6
7

10
11
12
13
14

Michael Alan Scheibli
1416 West Street
Redding, CA 96001
530.243.0317
530.243.2003 – facsimile
[e-mail]
Defendant

15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18
19

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

20
21
22

Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL SCHEIBLI, et al.,

23

Defendants.

24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00427-WBS-CKD
Judge William B. Shubb
STIPULATION TO COMPLETE
SERVICE

25
26

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Fifth Third Bank and Defendant

27

Michael Scheibli that Plaintiff is permitted leave to complete service on Defendant Inderjit

28

Grewal.

STIPULATION TO COMPLETE SERVICE- 1

On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons indicating that service

1
2

was completed on Defendant Grewal on May 10, 2012. See Declaration of Geoffrey J. Moul at

3

¶3 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant Scheibli submitted

4

their Joint Status Report in which they advised that all parties had been served. Accordingly, in

5
6
7

the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order entered on May 25, 2012, the Court directed that no
further service is permitted without leave.

8

Defendant Scheibli, historically counsel for Defendant Grewal, has now informed

9

Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant Grewal does not believe service has been completed properly,

10

contending that service was not made at a residence of Defendant Grewal. Id. at ¶4.

11
As a result, Plaintiff and Defendant Scheibli hereby stipulate that Plaintiff is permitted to

12
13

continue its efforts to serve Defendant Grewal.1

14

Dated: June 25, 2012

15

Respectfully submitted,

16

/s/ Geoffrey J. Moul
Geoffrey J. Moul (admitted pro hac vice)
Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
1533 Lake Shore Drive
Columbus, OH 43204
614.488.0400
614.488.0401 – facsimile
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20

Jordan T.L. Peters
Peters Law, Inc.
915 Highland Pointe Dr.
Suite 250
Roseville, CA. 95678
916.434.6740
916.434.6741 – facsimile
[e-mail]

21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Plaintiff

26
27
28

1

The parties submit that a revised discovery schedule will need to be established in order to avoid engaging in
discovery that will need to be duplicated once service on Defendant Grewal has been completed.

STIPULATION TO COMPLETE SERVICE- 2

/s/ Michael A. Scheibli, per email authority
Michael Alan Scheibli
1416 West Street
Redding, CA 96001
530.243.0317
530.243.2003 – facsimile
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4

Defendant

5
6

ORDER

7
8
9
10
11

Pursuant to the above Stipulation,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted leave to continue its efforts to
serve Defendant Inderjit Grewal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
DATED: June 26, 2012
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION TO COMPLETE SERVICE- 3