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)

Download PDF
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?