Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 31

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Stipulation filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsai, Rocky) (Filed on 8/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

ROCKY C. TSAI (SBN 221452)
([e-mail])
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Trustee, et al.
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED
ON SIGNATURE PAGE

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, et al.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 3:13-cv-03663-CRB
JOINT STIPULATED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS

Plaintiffs,
v.

FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, a
municipality; and MORTGAGE
RESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
[Civil L.R. 7-11 & 7-12]

Defendants.

18
19
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 7-12, and the stipulation concurrently filed
20
herewith, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel, hereby respectfully submit this
21
joint stipulated administrative motion requesting that the Court grant both Plaintiffs and
22
Defendants leave to exceed this Court’s Standing Order page limit for opening and opposition
23
briefs, and Civil Local Rule 7-3(c)’s page limit for reply briefs, with regard to their memoranda
24
of points and authorities in support of, and in opposition to, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
25
Injunction (“PI Motion”).
26
Plaintiffs’ complaint in the above-entitled action asserts claims against the City of
27
28

1
JOINT STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-03663-CRB

1

Richmond and Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC (“Defendants”) alleging that the use of the

2

City of Richmond’s power of eminent domain to seize certain mortgage loans is unconstitutional,

3

including claims alleging the following:

4

•

5

Violation of the “Public Use” requirement and the prohibitions against extraterritorial
seizures under the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions;

6

•

Violation of the Commerce and Contracts clauses of the U.S. Constitution; and

7

•

Violation of the “Just Compensation” requirements of the Takings Clauses of the U.S.

8

and California Constitutions.

9

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, counsel for the undersigned parties have stipulated as

10
11

follows:
1.

Defendants do not object to the as-filed page length (22 pages, exclusive of title

12

pages, indexes of cases, table of contents, exhibits, affidavits, and summary of argument) of

13

Plaintiffs’ opening Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiffs’ PI Motion.

14

2.

Plaintiffs do not object to Defendants’ filing a Memorandum of Points and

15

Authorities in opposition to Plaintiffs’ PI Motion of up to 27 pages, exclusive of title pages,

16

indexes of cases, table of contents, exhibits, affidavits, and summary of argument.

17

3.

Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ filing a Reply Memorandum of Points and

18

Authorities in support of Plaintiffs’ PI Motion of up to 20 pages, exclusive of title pages, indexes

19

of cases, table of contents, exhibits, affidavits, and summary of argument.

20
In order to adequately address each of the constitutional claims at issue, as well as the
21
other factors that must be weighed with regard to Plaintiffs’ PI Motion, the parties respectfully
22
request that the Court permit both Plaintiffs and Defendants to file memoranda of points and
23
authorities in excess of the 15-page limit for opening and opposition briefs as set forth in
24
Paragraph 5 of this Court’s Standing Order and the 15-page limit for reply briefs as set forth in
25
Civil L.R. 7-3(c).
26
27
28

2
JOINT STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-03663-CRB
________

1
2
3

Respectfully submitted,

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Dated: August 22, 2013

ROPES & GRAY LLP
By: /s/ Rocky C. Tsai
____________________________________
Rocky C. Tsai
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE; AND DEUTSCHE
BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS
TRUSTEE

12

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

13
14

By: /s/ Scott A. Kronland
____________________________________
Scott A. Kronland

15

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

16
17
18

I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Scott A.
Kronland, whose conformed signature is set forth above.

19
/s/ Rocky C. Tsai
_________________________
Rocky C. Tsai

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
JOINT STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS;
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-03663-CRB
________