Von Bozzay v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING re 35 Seventh Stipulation to Extend Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/27/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016)

1 MARY KATE SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 180203)
[e-mail]
2 MEGAN C. KELLY (State Bar No. 251293)
[e-mail]
3 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
4 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, California 94111
5 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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

SEVENTH 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

WHEREAS, August 25, 2015, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s deadline to
CV-15-3376
SIXTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
N.D. L.R. 6-1

11951.0644/6415298.1

1 respond to the complaint to September 28, 2015.
2

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2015, the parties attended the ADR teleconference and in

3 light of the parties existing efforts to determine whether there may be the potential for an informal
4 resolution, a further teleconference was scheduled for October 29, 2015.
5

WHEREAS, on or about September 15, 2015 the parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s

6 deadline to respond to the complaint to October 28, 2015;
7

WHEREAS, on October 29, 2015, the parties appeared for the further ADR teleconference,

8 however the ADR Program representative did not join.
9

WHEREAS, on or about October 21, 2015, the parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s

10 deadline to respond to the complaint to November 27, 2015;
11

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2015, the parties attended a case management conference at

12 which time the Court referred the parties to another ADR Program phone conference to occur
13 within sixty (60) days and set a further case management conference for February 12, 2016.
14

WHEREAS, on December 16, 2015, the parties attended a further ADR teleconference and

15 discussed the fact that the parties continue to work together to determine whether an informal
16 resolution will be possible. The parties stipulated to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the
17 complaint to January 27, 2016.
18

WHEREAS, a further ADR teleconference is scheduled for January 27, 2016 and a case

19 management conference is scheduled for February 12, 2016. The parties are continuing to work
20 together to determine whether an informal resolution will be possible.
21

WHEREAS, no trial schedule has been set.

22

WHEREAS, as stated above, the parties continue to explore whether there may be the

23 potential for an informal resolution;
24

WHEREAS, in order to continue in these informal resolution discussions, reduce the costs

25 of litigation for all parties, and unburden the Court’s docket, counsel for the parties’ have met and
26 conferred and agreed to a further fourteen (14) day extension of the deadline for Defendant to
27 respond to the complaint. This is the parties’ seventh such stipulation.
28

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to N.D. Local Rule 6-1, it is hereby STIPULATED:
CV-15-3376
11951.0644/6415298.1
2
SEVENTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
N.D. L.R. 6-1

1 Defendant shall have up to and including February 10, 2016 to respond to the complaint.
2 DATED: January 26, 2015

MELLEN LAW FIRM

3
4

By:

/s/ Sarah Shapero
Sarah Shapero

5
6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiff George Von Bozzay
I, Megan C. Kelly, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this
SEVENTH 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

11
12
13

DATED: January 26, 2015

SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation

14
15
16

By:

/s/ Megan C. Kelly
Megan C. Kelly

17

Judge Jo

Spero

H

ER

LI

RT

22
23

R NIA

seph C.

NO

21

ERED

O ORD

IT IS S

FO

Dated: January 27, 2016

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC

A

20

UNIT
ED

19

ISTRIC
Attorneys for
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

S

18

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

24
25
26
27
28
CV-15-3376
3
SEVENTH STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
N.D. L.R. 6-1

11951.0644/6415298.1