Lymburner v. U.S. Financial Funds, Inc.

Filing 87

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING U.S. Financial Funding, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint re 86 . Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 5/28/09. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROGER S. RAPHAEL, SB# 111946 E-Mail: raphael@lbbslaw.com SHAHRAM NASSI, SB# 239812 E-Mail: nassi@lbbslaw.com One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 Attorneys for Defendant U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco) DIAN C. LYMBURNER, individually, and on ) behalf of others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING, INC., a ) California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) CASE NO. CV 08-00325 EDL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, the parties attended a Case Management Conference in the above-captioned matter; WHEREAS, following the Case Management Conference, the Honorable Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding amendment of the complaint, and for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than May 1, 2009; WHEREAS, on May 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint; WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant U.S. Financial Funding, Inc., have agreed that Defendant shall not be required to answer the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and that all denials, responses, and affirmative defenses contained in the answer filed by Defendant to the original complaint shall be responsive to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; /// 4819-8358-0419.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LYMBURNER V U.S. FINANCIAL CV08-00325 EDL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED by and among the parties, through their respective counsel, that: 1. Defendant U.S. Financial Funding, Inc. shall not be required to answer the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and that all denials, responses, and affirmative defenses contained in the answer filed by Defendant to the original complaint shall be responsive to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: May____, 2009 LEE & FIELDS, A.P.C. 10 11 12 By 13 14 15 16 DATED: May____, 2009 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4819-8358-0419.1 Christopher P. Fields Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dian C. Lymburner LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP By_______________________________________ Roger S. Raphael Shahram Nassi Attorneys for Defendant, U.S. Financial Funding, Inc. -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LYMBURNER V U.S. FINANCIAL CV08-00325 EDL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4819-8358-0419.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant U.S. Financial Funding, Inc. shall not be required to answer the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and that all denials, responses, and affirmative defenses contained in the answer filed by Defendant to the original complaint shall be responsive to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED UNIT ED May 28, 2009 Dated: ______________ ER N F D IS T IC T O R -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LYMBURNER V U.S. FINANCIAL CV08-00325 EDL A C LI FO lizabeth Judge E rte D. Lapo R NIA _______________R__ER__________ _ D __ ED IS SO OLaporte Hon. Elizabeth D. IT United States District Court Judge NO S ISTRIC ES D TC AT T RT U O RT H 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dian C. Lymburner v. U.S. Financial Funding, Inc. USDC, Northern District, Oakland, Case No. CV 08-0325 EDL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, California 94104. On May 26, 2009, I served the following document(s) by E-FILING: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4819-8358-0419.1 DEFENDANT U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING INC.'S STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING U. S. FINANCIAL FUNDING INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (BY E-FILING WITH THE COURT AND PROVIDED e-mail addresses): Christopher P. Fields chrisfields@leefieldslaw.com Edlee@leefields.com, or Efields43@yahoo.com Lee & Fields, A.P.C. 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 380-5858 Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. David M. Arbogast, Esq. jberns@jeffbernslaw.com darbogast@law111.com Arbogast & Berns LLP 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, CA 91356 Tel: 818/ 961-2000 Fax: 818/ 867-4820 Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Patrick Deblase, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Kiesel@kbla.com deblase@kbla.com eyerly@kbla.com Cgarcia@kbla.com Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: 310/ 854-4444 Fax: 310/ 854-0812 The documents were served by the following means: [X] (BY COURT'S CM/ECF SYSTEM) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically filed the documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of that filing to the persons listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [X] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on May 26, 2009, at San Francisco, California. Arleigh Koulax -4- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LYMBURNER V U.S. FINANCIAL CV08-00325 EDL

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?