Nand et al v. Specialized Portfolio Servicing Inc., et al

Filing 35

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 34 to Continue Hearing Dates and Briefing Schedules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Responses due by 1/5/2017. Replies due by 1/12/2017. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Edward M. Chen. Case Management Statement due by 1/19/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/26/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/29/16. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THOMAS A. WOODS (SB #210050) thomas.woods@stoel.com BRYAN L. HAWKINS (SB #238346) bryan.hawkins@stoel.com STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-0700 Facsimile: (916) 447-4781 Attorneys for Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (erroneously sued as Specialized Portfolio Servicing, Inc.) and National Default Servicing Corporation 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 EVELYN NAND, an individual; SUKHANDRA NAND, an individual 13 14 15 16 17 18 Case No. 3:16-cv-04030-EMC FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATES AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., a business entity; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, a business entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Complaint Filed: July 18, 2016 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 89687956.1 0052161-03849 -1- 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiffs Evelyn Nand and Sukhandra Nand (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants 3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (erroneously sued as Specialized Portfolio Servicing, Inc.) 4 (“SPS”) and National Default Servicing Corporation (“NDSC,” collectively “Defendants”), by 5 and through their counsel of record, hereby respectfully submit this further stipulated request to 6 continue the currently scheduled hearing dates and briefing schedules on Plaintiffs’ motion for a 7 preliminary injunction and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, both currently scheduled for 8 December 15, 2016. This request is being made to provide the parties with additional time to 9 determine if their dispute can be resolved informally. 10 Pursuant to this stipulation, the Parties respectfully request that the December 15, 2016 11 hearings on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be 12 continued to January 19, 2017 or to another date convenient to the Court’s schedule. The Parties 13 also request that the Court continue the briefing dates as follows: 14 • 15 16 17 18 19 January 5, 2017– the parties’ deadlines to submit their respective responsive briefs to the pending motions; and • January 12, 2017 – the parties’ deadlines to submit their respective reply briefs in support of their pending motions; The Parties also agree that the restraining order issued by the Court will remain in effect until the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 89687956.1 0052161-03849 -2- 1 2 Plaintiffs and Defendants so stipulate. DATED: November 29, 2016 STOEL RIVES LLP 3 By: /s/ Bryan L. Hawkins THOMAS A. WOODS BRYAN L. HAWKINS Attorneys for Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (erroneously sued as Specialized Portfolio Servicing, Inc.) and National Default Servicing Corporation 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: November 29, 2016 MELLEN LAW FIRM 9 10 By: /s/ Jessica Galletta MATTHEW D. MELLEN JESSICA GALLETTA Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVELYN NAND and SUKHANDRA NAND 11 12 13 14 15 16 ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURE: I attest under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I have 17 received the concurrence in the filing of this document from the listed signatories as 18 required by Local Rule 5.1(i)(3). 19 20 Dated: November 29, 2016 /s/ Bryan L. Hawkins BRYAN L. HAWKINS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 89687956.1 0052161-03849 -3- 1 ORDER 2 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Evelyn Nand and Sukhandra Nand’s 3 6 7 8 9 Specialized Portfolio Servicing, Inc.) (“SPS”) and National Default Servicing Corporation’s stipulated request to continue the currently scheduled hearings and briefing schedules on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. After considering the Parties’ stipulation and finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ stipulated request. The December 15, 2016 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 26 continued to January 19, 2017. Defendants shall submit their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion by no later than January 5, 2017. Plaintiffs shall submit their reply brief in support of the motion by no later than January 12, 2017. 26 The December 15, 2016 hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is continued to January 19, 2017. Plaintiffs shall submit their opposition to Defendants’ motion by no later than January 5, 2017. Defendants shall submit their reply brief in support of the motion by no later than January 12, 2017. The CMC is reset from December 15, 2016 to January 26, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. Joint CMC statement due January 19, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED 19 S DATED: ________________ 22 UNIT ED 11/29/2016 21 RT U O 20 S DISTRICT TE C TA ERED O ORD D UNITED S IT IS STATESFDISTRICT COURT JUDGE DI IE AS MO 23 dwa Judge E 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 89687956.1 0052161-03849 -4- A H ER LI RT 25 hen rd M. C NO 24 R NIA 5 (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (erroneously sued as FO 4 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?