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)
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?