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

Filing 53

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/5/16 ORDERING that JPMC shall have up to and including 12/9/2016 to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Joseph Duffy, Bar No. 241854
[e-mail]
Joseph Bias, Bar No. 257127
[e-mail]
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO

11

DIVISION

12
13

VLADIMIR RIVKIN,

Case No. 2:14-cv-02662-TLN-EFB
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR DEFENDANT
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND ORDER

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16
17
18
19
20

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,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1

LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 30870614.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-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 then entered into four 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/ 30870614.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

settlement discussions. (Docket Nos. 27, 31, 36 & 38.) The Court entered orders
approving the Parties’ stipulations. (Docket Nos. 28, 32, 37, & 39.)
H.

On September 3, 2015, JPMC filed a motion to dismiss the First

Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). (Docket. No. 40).
I.

The Court took the Motion under submission on October 6, 2015.

(Docket No. 45).
J.

In late August of 2016, the primary attorney handling this matter for

JPMC, Joseph Quattrocchi, passed away.
K.

On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the Motion but permitted

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
L.

On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

M.

To provide new counsel for JPMC sufficient time to review the matter

and prepare a response to the Second Amended Complaint, the Parties have agreed
to extend JPMC’s deadline for responding to the Second Amended Complaint up to
and including December 9, 2016.
IT IS THEREFOR STIPULATED that JPMC shall have up to and including
December 9, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

3

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 30870614.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

1

Dated December 1, 2016

FRANZ LAW

2

By:

3
4

/s/ Pamela M. Schuur (as authorized
on December __, 2016)
Pamela M. Schuur
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VLADIMIR RIVKIN

5
6
7

Dated: December 1, 2016

8

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
By: /s/ Joseph Bias
Joseph Duffy
Joseph Bias

9
10

Attorneys for Defendant
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

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/ 30870614.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB

1

ORDER

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: December 5, 2016

6
7
8

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP

5

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES

DB2/ 30870614.1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02662-TLN-EFB