Rivkin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.

Filing 39

STIPULATION and ORDER 38 for extension of time signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/28/2015. Defendant JPMC shall have to and including 10/1/2015 to respond to plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Amy M. Spicer (SBN 188399)
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Joseph Duffy (SBN 241854)
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Tel:
213.612.2500
Fax:
213.612.2501
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO
DIVISION

15
16

VLADIMIR RIVKIN,

Case No. 14-2662-TLN-EFB

17

vs.

19
20
21
22
23

STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR DEFENDANT
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

18

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a
New York association; FAY
SERVICING LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; ALBERTELLI LAW
PARTNERS CALIFORNIA, PA, a
California corporation,, and DOES 1
through 10,

24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1

LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 26109605.1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO FAC
CASE NO. 14-2662-TLN-EFB

1

Plaintiff Vladimir Rivkin (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank,

2

N.A. (“JPMC” and with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), hereby enter into this Stipulation

3

to Extend Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

4

with reference to the following facts:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

RECITALS
A.

On or about October 16, 2014, Plaintiff commenced an action in the

Superior Court for the County of Nevada entitled Rivkin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., et al., Case Number TCU14-5931 (the “State Court Action”).
B.

On or around October 23, 2014, Plaintiff served the Summons and

First Amended Complaint on JPMC.
C.

On November 14, 2014, JPMC timely removed the State Court Action

to this Court.
D.

On November 25, 2014, the Parties entered into a stipulation to extend

the time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint to allow the Plaintiff
and co-defendant Fay Servicing LLC to engage in discussions regarding the then
pending Trustee’s Sale and in view of the possibility of Plaintiff filing a second
amended complaint.
E.

On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a second

amended complaint. (Docket No. 21.)
F.

On January 21, 2015, the Parties entered into a further stipulation to

extend the time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint in view of

22

Plaintiff’s pending request for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Docket

23

No. 25.) The Court entered an order approving the Parties’ stipulation on January

24
25
26
27

22, 2015. (Docket No. 26.)
G.

The Parties has since entered into three further stipulations to extend

the time for JPMC to respond to the First Amended Complaint in view of Plaintiff’s
pending request for leave to file a second amended complaint and their ongoing

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

2

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 26109605.1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO FAC
CASE NO. 14-2662-TLN-EFB

1
2
3
4
5
6

settlement discussions. (Docket Nos. 27, 31 & 36.) The Court entered orders
approving the Parties’ stipulations. (Docket Nos. 28, 32 & 37.) JPMC’s current
deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint is July 27, 2015.
H.

As of July 24, 2015, the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s request

for leave to file the second amended complaint.
I.

The Parties are engaged in discussions regarding options for resolving

7

the case without further litigation. In view of Plaintiff’s pending request for leave

8

to amend the operative complaint and the Parties’ on-going discussions, the Parties

9

have agreed to extend the time for JPMC to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended

10
11
12
13
14

Complaint to and including October 1, 2015.
J.

This is the Parties’ sixth request for an extension of time to respond to

the First Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFOR STIPULATED that JPMC shall have to and including
October 1, 2015 to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

15
16

Dated: July 24, 2015

FRANZ LAW

17

By:

18
19

Attorneys for Plaintiff
VLADIMIR RIVKIN

20
21

/s/ Pamela M. Schuur (as authorized
on July 24, 2015)
Pamela M. Schuur

Dated: July 24, 2015

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

22

By: /s/ Amy M. Spicer
Amy M. Spicer

23
24

Attorneys for Defendant
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

3

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 26109605.1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO FAC
CASE NO. 14-2662-TLN-EFB

1
2
3

ORDER

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2015

7
8
9
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

4

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 26109605.1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO FAC
CASE NO. 14-2662-TLN-EFB