Fernandez v. Franklin Credit Management Corporation
Filing
17
ORDER GRANTING 16 Second Stipulation Extending Deadline to File Defendant's Responsive Pleading filed by Franklin Credit Management Corporation. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 7/11/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2016)
1
2
3
4
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Robin P. Wright, Esq., SBN 150984
Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq., SBN 258266
4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel. (949) 477-5050; Fax (949) 608-9142
jhernandez@wrightlegal.net
5
6
Attorneys for Defendant, FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
7
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DAVID FERNANDEZ, an individual and
borrower,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
Case No: 3:16-cv-02837-JCS
Assigned to the Honorable:
Joseph C. Spero
vs.
FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a business entity; and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive,
SECOND STIPULATION
EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE
PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff DAVID FERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”), and
Defendant FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (“Defendant”), by and
through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
This matter was removed to the above Court on May 26, 2016.
2.
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Complaint was initially due on June 2, 2016.
However, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a stipulation extending Defendant’s deadline to
respond to the Complaint to July 1, 2016. On June 2, 2016, the Court approved this first
stipulation.
27
28
-1SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1
2
3
3.
On June 2, 2016, the Court referred this case to the ADR Unit for the purpose of
determining whether a loan modification would be a feasible resolution to the matter.
4.
On June 15, 2016 and June 27, 2016, two telephone conferences were held with
4
the ADR Unit whereby Defendant agreed to accept and review Plaintiff’s application for a loan
5
modification.
6
5.
On June 28, 2016, Defendant conveyed an offer to place Plaintiff on a trial loan
7
modification.
8
reviewing the offer.
9
10
11
12
13
14
6.
Plaintiff has until July 28, 2016 to accept the offer.
Plaintiff is currently
A further telephone conference with the ADR Unit has been set for July 27, 2016
to monitor the progress of the loan modification review.
7.
The Parties require additional time to complete the loan modification review, and
would like to do so while limiting fees and costs incurred in litigation at this stage.
8.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant agree that Defendant’s deadline to respond
to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be extended from July 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016.
15
16
Respectfully submitted,
17
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
18
Dated: June 29, 2016
By:
s/ Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq.
Joshua R. Hernandez, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, FRANKLIN
CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
19
20
21
REAL ESTATE LAW CENTER, PC
22
Dated: June 29, 2016
By:
S
Dated: July 11, 2016
UNIT
ED
26
RT
U
O
25
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
27
NO
A
H
ER
Spero
LI
RT
28
seph C.
Judge Jo
R NIA
24
s/ Tala Rezai, Esq.
Tala Rezai, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DAVID
FERNANDEZ
FO
23
N
C
F-2D IS T IC T O
R
SECOND STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
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?