Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING 18 STIPULATION Regarding Withdrawal of Pending Motion to Dismiss and Deadline for Filing of Amended Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 1/2/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)
Case3:12-cv-05629-JSW Document18-1 Filed12/21/12 Page1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
SHARON NOELE HARRIS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
12
[Assigned to the Hon. Jeffrey S. White]
v.
13
14
Case No.: 3:12-cv-05629-JSW
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
WITHDRAW PENDING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND SETTING DEADLINE
FOR WELLS FARGO TO FILE AN
AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national
association, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Having read and considered the foregoing joint stipulation, and good cause appearing:
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
25
1.
Defendant Wells Fargo’s request to withdraw its pending motion to dismiss
26
(Doc. 16) is GRANTED. The hearing date on this motion to dismiss (March 29,
27
2013) is hereby vacated.
28
///
93000/FR0627/00549285-1
1
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05629-JSW
ORDER RE FILING AMENDED
MOTION TO DISMISS
Case3:12-cv-05629-JSW Document18-1 Filed12/21/12 Page2 of 3
1
2.
Defendant Wells Fargo shall have until December 28, 2012 to file an amended
2
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The amended 12(b)(6) motion
3
shall conform with the Court’s Civil Standing Order.
4
5
6
Dated:
January 2, 2013
, 2012
HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
93000/FR0627/00549285-1
2
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05629-JSW
ORDER RE FILING AMENDED
MOTION TO DISMISS
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?