Barrionuevo et al v. Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 62

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING LAST DAY TO HEAR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BY 7/11/13 re 61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 60 Stipulation and Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, filed by California Reconveyance Corporation, JP Morg an Chase Bank, N.A. as acquirer of certain assets from Washington Mutual Bank, FA Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/29/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 BRYAN CAVE LLP Daniel T. Rockey, California Bar No. 178264 2 Bahareh Mostajelean, California Bar No. 258903 John C. Hedger, California Bar No. 230814 3 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 675-3400 4 Telephone: Facsimile: (415) 675-3434 daniel.rockey@bryancave.com 5 Email: bahareh.mostajelean@bryancave.com hedgerj@bryancave.com 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A (as acquirer of certain assets from WASHINGTON MUTUAL 8 BANK, FA); and CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE CO. 9 Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 14 JOSE BARRIONUEVO AND FLOR BARRIONEUVO individuals, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 CHASE BANK, N.A. Successor In Interest to 18 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 19 as Trustee for WMALT SERIES 2006-AR4 Trust; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 20 CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, aka 21 “MERS” and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE 22 Defendants. 23 Case No.: 3:12-CV-0572 EMC SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER Complaint Filed: 12/06/2011 First Amended Complaint Filed: 4/19/2012 Trial Date: 8/26/13 24 25 26 27 28 SF01DOCS\141254.1\C076651\0334282 SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-572 EMC Plaintiffs Jose and Flor Barrionuevo (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, 1 2 N.A., for itself and as an acquirer of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual from the 3 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“Defendant”), 4 by and through their counsels of record, hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order 5 regarding the scheduling order. JOINT STIPULATION 6 Whereas, on November 5, 2012, the court set a trial date of August 26, 2012 and ordered a 7 8 schedule concurrent with that date; Whereas, on April 19, 2013, the court amended the scheduling order; 9 Whereas, the amended scheduling order requires all dispositive motions to be heard no Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 10 11 later than June 27, 2013; 12 Whereas, such motions must consequently be filed no later than May 23, 2013; 13 Whereas, the parties had agreed that Defendant could have until May 30, 2013 to file a 14 Rule 56 motion; 15 Whereas, Defendant was unable to depose Plaintiffs’ expert until May 21, 2013; 16 Whereas, on May 23, 2013, counsel for both parties realized a May 30, 2013 filing 17 deadline for a June 27, 2013 hearing does not comport with the Local Rules of the Northern 18 District of California; Whereas, the parties agreed to seek guidance from the court as to the best means of resolving 19 20 the mistake of counsel when submitting the prior stipulation to the court; Whereas, the parties received such guidance and are agreed to the direction of the court; 21 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// SF01DOCS\141254.1\C076651\0334282 SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-572 EMC 1 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES that they recommend that 2 the court’s order of April 19, 2013, be amended and a new order be issued setting a deadline of July 3 11, 2013 for the hearing of dispositive motions (which requires such a motion to be filed no later than 4 June 6, 2013). 5 6 Dated: May 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 7 Michael Yesk, Attorney at Law 8 By: /s/ Michael Yesk Michael Yesk Attorney for Plaintiffs 9 Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 10 11 12 Dated: May 24, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 13 BRYAN CAVE LLP 14 By: /s/ John C. Hedger John C. Hedger Attorneys for Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., for itself and as an acquirer of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank 15 16 17 18 19 20 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 21 22 I, John C. Hedger, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained 23 from each of the signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 24 America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 24, 2013, at San Francisco, 25 California. 26 27 28 ______/S/_John C. Hedger_____________ John C. Hedger SF01DOCS\141254.1\C076651\0334282 2 SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-572 EMC [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER 1 2 Having reviewed the stipulation of the parties and the status of the pleadings, the 3 recommendations of the stipulation are adopted as an order of the court as follows: The scheduling order of April 19, 2013 is amended to allow the hearing of dispositive 5 motions no later than July 11, 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 5/29 9 DATED: ______________, 2013 FO ER 12 13 A H Bryan Cave LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 ____________________________________ Honorable Edward M. Chen hen .C UNITED STATED ard M ge Edw DISTRICT COURT Jud NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RT 11 ERED O ORD D IT IS S DIFIE AS MO NO 10 UNIT ED 7 RT U O S 6 S DISTRICT TE C TA R NIA 1. LI 4 N F D IS T IC T O R C 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SF01DOCS\141254.1\C076651\0334282 3 SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-572 EMC

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?