Elizabeth Lloyd v. Vipul Gupta et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING: #23 STIPULATION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer. Amended Pleadings due by 1/12/2016. No chambers copy is required. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/5/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Christopher W. Arledge (Bar No. 200767)
Email: [e-mail]
Peter R. Afrasiabi (Bar No. 193336)
Email: [e-mail]
Molly J. Magnuson (Bar No. 229444)
Email: [e-mail]
ONE LLP
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
East Tower, Suite 500
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant,
9Global, Inc.

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

ELIZABETH LLOYD, an individual,

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17
18
19
20

VIPUL GUPTA, an individual; NANDITA
GUPTA, an individual; ASHOK GUPTA,
an individual; BHARAT GUPTA, an
individual; AKSHAY GUPTA, an
individual; 60MONTHLOANS, INC., a
California Corporation, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive,

23
24
25

STIPULATION FOR ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT 9GLOBAL,
INC. LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED ANSWER; [PROPOSED]
ORDER

Defendants,

21
22

Case No. 3:15-cv-04183-MEJ
Hon. Maria-Elena James

and
9GLOBAL, INC., a California
Corporation,
Defendant and Nominal
Defendant.

26
27

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

28
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOR 9GLOBAL TO FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

WHEREAS, this action was originally filed by Plaintiff Elizabeth Lloyd (“Plaintiff”)
in San Mateo Superior Court on August 12, 2015;
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2015, Defendant 9Global, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed an

4

Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Answer”) in the Superior Court as a general denial

5

pursuant to state-specific procedures;

6

WHEREAS, this action was removed to this Court on September 14, 2015;

7

WHEREAS, Defendant filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint in this Court on

8
9

December 1, 2015;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant again amend its answer and, in

10

doing so, has argued that Defendant’s Amended Answer fails to comply with Rule 11 of

11

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

12
13
14
15
16

WHEREAS, although Defendant disputes that the Amended Answer fails to comply
with Rule 11, it has voluntarily agreed to file a Second Amended Answer;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has indicated that she will stipulate to Defendant filing a
Second Amended Answer;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties that

17

Defendant shall be granted leave to file a Second Amended Answer, and that such Answer

18

shall be filed within 7 days of the date the Court grants the Parties’ stipulation.

19

Respectfully submitted,

20
21
22

Dated: January 4, 2016

ONE LLP

23
24
25
26
27

By: /s/ Molly J. Magnuson
Christopher W. Arledge
Molly J. Magnuson
Attorney for Defendant,
9Global, Inc.

28
2
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOR 9GLOBAL TO FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Dated: January 4, 2016

ALTO LITIGATION, PC

2
3
4
5

By: /s/ Bahram Seyedin-Noor
Bahram Seyedin-Noor
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Elizabeth Lloyd

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOR 9GLOBAL TO FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

Pursuant to the Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant 9Global, Inc. is
granted leave to file a Second Amended Answer within 7 days of the date of this Order.

4
5

Dated: January 5, 2016

6
7
8

Hon. Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOR 9GLOBAL TO FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER;
[PROPOSED] ORDER