Lundy v. Selene Finance, LP et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND BRIEFING DEADLINES ON MOTION TO DISMISS re 45 Stipulation filed by John F. Lundy. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 8, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN F. LUNDY, Case No. 15-cv-05676-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 SELENE FINANCE, LP, et al., Defendants. Re: ECF No. 45 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND BRIEFING DEADLINES ON MOTION TO DISMISS On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff John Lundy and Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. 13 filed a stipulation to continue all deadlines related to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, pending 14 settlement negotiations. ECF No. 45. They request that the deadlines for Plaintiff’s response, 15 Defendant’s reply, and the hearing date for the motion all be continued, and that if no settlement is 16 reached by March 15, 2016, Defendant will re-notice its Motion to Dismiss. 17 The stipulation is granted in part. The deadline for Plaintiff’s response is continued to 18 March 31, 2016. The deadline for Defendant’s reply is continued to April 7, 2016. The hearing 19 on the motion is continued to April 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. 20 The Court notes that the stipulation was filed on the same date as the original deadline for 21 Plaintiff’s response to the motion. To request a continuance of a deadline on the day of that 22 deadline is to assume that the requested relief will be granted. The parties are advised that future 23 requests for enlargements of time should be filed sufficiently in advance for the Court to give them 24 due consideration. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 8, 2016 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

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?