Von Bozzay v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING re 21 Fourth Stipulation to Extend Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/27/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2015)

Download PDF
1 MARY KATE SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 180203) mks@severson.com 2 MEGAN C. KELLY (State Bar No. 251293) mck@severson.com 3 SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation 4 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94111 5 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 6 Attorneys for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage 7 LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 11 GEORGE VON BOZZAY, Case No. CV-15-3376 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 FOURTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO N.D. L.R. 6-1 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff GEORGE VON BOZZAY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant NATIONSTAR 18 MORTGAGE LLC (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 19 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating the above-referenced action on July 22, 20 2015; 21 WHEREAS, Plaintiff served the complaint on Defendant on July 24, 2015; 22 WHEREAS, based on the July 24, 2015 service date, Defendant’s deadline to respond to 23 the complaint was originally August 14, 2015; 24 WHEREAS, on or about August 14, 2015, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s 25 deadline to respond to the complaint to August 28, 2015; 26 WHEREAS, on August 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order referring the case to the ADR 27 Unit for an assessment telephone conference on September 11, 2015; 28 CV-15-3376 FOURTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO N.D. L.R. 6-1 11951.0644/5341536.1 1 WHEREAS, on September 11, 2015, the parties attended the ADR teleconference and in 2 light of the parties existing efforts to determine whether there may be the potential for an informal 3 resolution, a further teleconference was scheduled for October 29, 2015. 4 WHEREAS, the parties continue to explore whether there may be the potential for an 5 informal resolution; 6 WHEREAS, in order to continue in these informal resolution discussions, reduce the costs 7 of litigation for all parties, and unburden the Court’s docket, counsel for the parties’ have met and 8 conferred and agreed to a further thirty (30) day extension of the deadline for Defendant to 9 respond to the complaint; 10 WHEREAS, no trial schedule has been set. There is a Case Management Conference 11 scheduled for November 6, 2015. The parties will still submit their Case Management Conference 12 Statement on October 30, 2015 unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 13 Based on the foregoing and pursuant to N.D. Local Rule 6-1, it is hereby STIPULATED: 14 Defendant shall have up to and including November 27, 2015 to respond to the complaint. 15 DATED: October 21, 2015 MELLEN LAW FIRM 16 17 By: 18 19 20 21 22 23 /s/ Sarah Shapero Sarah Shapero Attorneys for Plaintiff George Von Bozzay I, Megan C. Kelly, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this FOURTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO N.D. L.R. 6-1. I hereby attest that counsel for Plaintiff, Sarah Shapero, has concurred in this filing. /s/ Megan C. Kelly 24 25 26 27 28 CV-15-3376 2 FOURTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO N.D. L.R. 6-1 11951.0644/5341536.1 1 DATED: October 21, 2015 SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation 2 3 By: 4 /s/ Megan C. Kelly Megan C. Kelly 5 Attorneys for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC 6 ero h C. Sp NO 11 ED ORDER sep Judge Jo 13 A H ER LI RT 12 R NIA O IT IS S FO 10 UNIT ED 9 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 8 Dated: 10/27/15 S 7 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 CV-15-3376 3 FOURTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO N.D. L.R. 6-1 11951.0644/5341536.1

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?