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)
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?