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

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING re 7 Stipulation re: Appearances, Motions to Remand, and Responsive Pleadings filed by Aaron Shoaf, Effective Marketing Solutions, LLC, MoneyMutual. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/14/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

1
2
3

DONALD J. PUTTERMAN (BAR NO. 90822)
WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (BAR NO. 115042)
ANTHONY D. GILES (BAR NO. 178876)
PUTTERMAN LOGAN & GILES LLP
580 California Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

4
5

Mail service address:
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 805
Walnut Creek, California 94596

6
7

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
Aaron Shoaf, Effective Marketing LLC and
MoneyMutual LLC

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
DINAH PHAM et al.,

No. 3:12-cv-06579-JCS

14
Plaintiffs,

STIPULATION RE
APPEARANCES, MOTION TO
REMAND, AND RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS

15
v.
16
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21

Defendants AARON SHOAF (“Aaron”), EFFECTIVE MARKETING LLC (“Effective”),

22

MONEYMUTUAL LLC (“MoneyMutual”) (erroneously sued herein as “MoneyMutual”), JP

23

MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (“JP Morgan Chase”) and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (“Wells

24

Fargo”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), on the one hand, and Plaintiffs DINAH PHAM, PAULA

25

BERNAL and MARY F. BAILEY (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the other hand, by and through their

26

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

27

WHEREAS:

28
1
3:12-CV-06579-JCS STIPULATION

1
2

A.

Shoaf and Effective were properly served with the summons and First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”), but dispute whether they are subject to personal jurisdiction;

3

B.

MoneyMutual contends that it has never been properly served with the summons and

4

FAC, and Plaintiffs contend that MoneyMutual has been properly served with the summons and

5

FAC;

6

C.

MoneyMutual removed this action to this Court on December 31, 2012;

7

D.

JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo were properly served with the summons and First

8
9
10

Amended Complaint (“FAC”);
E.

Plaintiffs intend to move for remand of this action to the Superior Court of the State of

California, in and for the County of Alameda;

11
12

It is hereby STIPULATED between the parties as follows:

13

1.

MoneyMutual agrees to voluntarily appear and respond to the FAC, by answer or

14

otherwise, as provided in Paragraph 3 below, and at no time hereafter will move in any court to quash

15

service of process;

16

2.

MoneyMutual does not hereby concede that it was properly served with the summons

17

and FAC, and Plaintiffs do not hereby concede that MoneyMutual was not properly served with the

18

summons and FAC;

19

3.

Shoaf and Effective intend to contest personal jurisdiction, and by entering into this

20

Stipulation do not waive their right to do so, but agree not to later attempt to remove this action

21

should it be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court;

22

4.

JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo agree to appear through their counsel filing notices

23

of appearance within five court days of the filing of this Stipulation, and will join in MoneyMutual’s

24

removal of the action to this Court. The parties acknowledge that JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo

25

have the right to assert any other grounds presently existing in support of their respective joinders in

26

the removal;

27
28
2
3:12-CV-06579-JCS STIPULATION

1

5.

The parties acknowledge that should Plaintiffs’ intended motion to remand be granted,

2

and new and different circumstances arise during the course of the action which support removing the

3

action to federal court on the bases of new grounds or evidence that could not previously have been

4

presented by a Defendant, Defendants reserve all their respective rights to do so.

5

6.

The parties agree that all Defendants shall have an extension of time to answer or

6

otherwise respond to the FAC until 20 days after resolution by the Court of Plaintiffs’ intended

7

motion to remand or, should such motion not be filed or made moot by other developments, until a

8

date to be agreed upon by counsel for the parties, subject to order of either this Court or the Alameda

9

County Superior Court, as appropriate.

10

7.

Other than to move to quash service of process (which motion all Defendants

11

expressly agree not to bring), the Defendants each reserve their respective rights to respond to the

12

FAC by answer or any proper motion, including but not limited to by moving to dismiss for lack of

13

personal jurisdiction. 

14
15

Dated: January 10, 2013

PUTTERMAN LOGAN & GILES, LLP

16
17
18

By ____________/S/_____________________
Donald J. Putterman

19

Attorneys For Defendants Aaron Shoaf,
Effective Marketing LLC, and
MoneyMutual LLC

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

3:12-CV-06579-JCS STIPULATION

1

Dated: January 10, 2013

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

2
3

By ____________/S/_____________________
Bruce A. Ericson

4
5

Attorneys For Defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.

6
7

Dated: January 10, 2013

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

8
9

By ____________/S/_____________________
Molly Moriarty Lane

10
11

Attorneys For Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A.

12
13

Dated: January 10, 2013

LAKESHORE LAW CENTER

14
15

By ____________/S/_____________________
Jeffrey Wilens

16
17

Attorneys For Plaintiffs Dinah Pham, Paula
Bernal, and Mary F. Bailey

18

ER

A

H

24

R NIA

pero

FO

RT

23

ED
ORDER

S
seph C.
Judge Jo

NO

22

O
IT IS S

LI

21

Dated: Jan. 14, 2013

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

19

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

25
26
27
28
4
3:12-CV-06579-JCS STIPULATION